Cultural Centre Congestion

[#Metro]

Hmm. You can run a mixed operation with LRT and buses together.
This allows the mode to be finely matched with the task at hand.

The busway network needs to be operated with higher capacity buses in the short term.
Articulated and/or bi-articulated Bus Rapid Transit vehicles, which could operate exclusively
on the busways, need to be prioritised in fleet acquisition plans. In the long term, busways
will need a larger capacity vehicle that may be readily adapted to light rail or a similar vehicle
with comparable capacity and performance.

It isn't a question of "if" but "when".

p6, Lord Mayor's Mass Transit Report, http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2698

[somebody]

Out here most of the public are against route 250 been taken out of Woolloongabba,

The only problem with that is that it isn't them that are paying for it to deviate into Woolloongabba!  It's the public in general.  I wonder if they'd be willing to pay an additional 50c/trip for it to go into Woolloongabba?

Hmm. You can run a mixed operation with LRT and buses together.
This allows the mode to be finely matched with the task at hand.

The busway network needs to be operated with higher capacity buses in the short term.
Articulated and/or bi-articulated Bus Rapid Transit vehicles, which could operate exclusively
on the busways, need to be prioritised in fleet acquisition plans. In the long term, busways
will need a larger capacity vehicle that may be readily adapted to light rail or a similar vehicle
with comparable capacity and performance.

It isn't a question of "if" but "when".

p6, Lord Mayor's Mass Transit Report, http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2698

It's not entirely clear that a larger proportion of bendy buses and 14.5m buses isn't going to be a better idea.  Perhaps trolleybuses, but they would need to cope with the 90km/h speeds on the busway.  Not to mention difficulties in passing.

[stephenk]

For the record, my view is that light rail has had it's day.  If you are going to accept the lack of flexibility of rail, you might as well go with HR.

How would this be done?
QR Frequency every 30 minutes IMHO is unacceptable.

LRT is an alternative to buses, not heavy rail. So your QR frequency point is invalid.

[Jon Bryant]

For the record, my view is that light rail has had it's day.  If you are going to accept the lack of flexibility of rail, you might as well go with HR.

But that aside, where would you see a LR line going?

Maths point: demand on the busiest section is greater than a bus every 23 seconds.  This is shown at other points in that report, so I'm not completely sure where they get the 10476 pax number from.

Not sure what "SRAM le" is.

That was meant to be scramble.  Bad iPhone typing. Sorry.  

It is the bus frequency that is my real concern with adding more capacity to the busway.  A bus every 23 seconds makes it dangeous to catch a bus at the busy stops as everone tries to work out/predict where their bus will stop.  I find catching a bus at the Cultural Centre scary and my wife missed 2 buses recently because of the crowding.  

PS the flexibility of buses is also their biggest problem as the casual user (the ones we are trying to convert from cars to PT) are not sure where they go and are not confident to catch them.  A more refined number of trunk routes provide more confidence in catching a new service.

Routes would be to Springwood and beyond eventually, a line along Mains Road through Sunnybank and beyond,  Chermside and beyond, Carindale when eastern busway completed.  There would be others.   Maybe down to Hyperdome and then along Bryants Road.

As for construction disruptions the conversion could be done section by section at night.  

[#Metro]

LRT is an alternative to buses, not heavy rail. So your QR frequency point is invalid.

Not at all if the proposition was to replace Busway with HR.

[somebody]

For the record, my view is that light rail has had it's day.  If you are going to accept the lack of flexibility of rail, you might as well go with HR.

How would this be done?
QR Frequency every 30 minutes IMHO is unacceptable.

LRT is an alternative to buses, not heavy rail. So your QR frequency point is invalid.

I didn't mean to replace the SE busway with heavy rail.  I was speaking in general terms.

For the record, my view is that light rail has had it's day.  If you are going to accept the lack of flexibility of rail, you might as well go with HR.

But that aside, where would you see a LR line going?

Maths point: demand on the busiest section is greater than a bus every 23 seconds.  This is shown at other points in that report, so I'm not completely sure where they get the 10476 pax number from.

Not sure what "SRAM le" is.

That was meant to be scramble.  Bad iPhone typing. Sorry. 

It is the bus frequency that is my real concern with adding more capacity to the busway.  A bus every 23 seconds makes it dangeous to catch a bus at the busy stops as everone tries to work out/predict where their bus will stop.  I find catching a bus at the Cultural Centre scary and my wife missed 2 buses recently because of the crowding. 

PS the flexibility of buses is also their biggest problem as the casual user (the ones we are trying to convert from cars to PT) are not sure where they go and are not confident to catch them.  A more refined number of trunk routes provide more confidence in catching a new service.

That's an interesting point, but I'm not completely sure if favours light rail.  Needing to know where a transfer has to be done is not very attractive to casual users.

Isn't "dangerous" over stating it a bit?

[stephenk]

A bus every 23 seconds makes it dangeous to catch a bus at the busy stops as everone tries to work out/predict where their bus will stop.  I find catching a bus at the Cultural Centre scary and my wife missed 2 buses recently because of the crowding.  

PS the flexibility of buses is also their biggest problem as the casual user (the ones we are trying to convert from carsbtonPT) are not sure where they go and are not confident to catch them.  A more refined number of trunk routes provide more confidence in catching a new service.    

As mentioned before, LRT cannot match the SE Busway's capacity. So:
1) LRT is not a viable option
2) LRT would result in severe overcrowding at Cultural Centre - more dangerous than bus bay hopping!

Secondly, you mention a refined number of trunk routes. The problem is Brisbane is rather spread out, thus it needs more branches than trunks.

LRT is an alternative to buses, not heavy rail. So your QR frequency point is invalid.

Not at all if the proposition was to replace Busway with HR.

No offence, but your argument is getting more unbelievable by the minute.  

So how would heavy rail get around the sharp corners and steep gradients?
Which endless pot of money would the massive conversion costs come from?
What would happen when heavy rail goes across the Victoria Bridge and into QS bus station?

[#Metro]

*IF*

For the record, it was not a proposal but a response to a query posted by 'somebody' earlier in the thread.
Of course I don't believe that SE Busway should be converted to HR, that was apparent from my posts earlier.

[#Metro]

In the long term, busways
will need a larger capacity vehicle that may be readily adapted to light rail or a similar vehicle
with comparable capacity and performance.

When the artic and bi-arctic options have become operational and become exhausted (i.e. full) this "similar vehicle" had better appear or the only other options will be to a) restrict passenger capacity b) implement LRT.

What is missing from the Mass Transit Report is the advances in Light Rail Technology which may overcome these technical issues or at least make them less of a problem.

Track: Concrete can be cut and the track laid and glued to the busway using polymer bonding. Using this field-tested technique, minimal relocation is required (i.e. no digging). Track can be laid at a rate of ~100m in 8 hours. Given that diversions for busway maintainence occur on weekends and often require a shut down of the busway, I don't see why this could not be done for LRT installation. It also represents a large cost saving. The MT Report did not canvass this option.

Link: http://www.trampower.co.uk/track.html

Overhead power wiring: May not be required in the future as magnetic induction could be placed in the busway. This means no overhead wiring. This is being done by Bombardier (video available).

http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/sustainability/technology/primove-catenary-free-operation?docID=0901260d800486ab

Video here: http://www.bombardier.com/files/en/supporting_docs/image_and_media/products/PRIMOVE.wmv

[somebody]

Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRVBL6M0reo&feature=related

Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xQBBNq8Q8k&feature=related

But those systems are carrying at most 20% of what is running through the Cultural Centre in peak!  And then you have to cater for the buses now using the Capt Cook Bridge.

In the long term, busways
will need a larger capacity vehicle that may be readily adapted to light rail or a similar vehicle
with comparable capacity and performance.

I have a problem with this statement i.e. I think the Lord Mayor's report is wrong.  No real solution is mentioned, just some nebulous statement that LR may be required in the future.  LR to where? What might be required is to improve the capacity of certain stations, with greater use of the Capt Cook Bridge.

[#Metro]

The reason why cultural centre is so congested is because there are so many buses, not because of the presence of any LRT vehicles. The small distance (headway) between them is also an issue. If a bus is only 20 seconds (on average) ahead of you and one is 20 seconds behind you, that really isn't much room to stop or accelerate in.

36 LRT Vehicles for the SE Busway vs 154 standard buses...
Anyway, the LRT option will presumably be taken together with the Adelaide St bridge, so it is likely that the buses will retain a separate platform for their stops.

Improvements or a second busway portal into the city along a Captain Cook bridge or similar alignment has merit IMHO and should be investigated further. It is a good idea.

[MaxHeadway]

The flexibility of buses is also their biggest problem as the casual user ... are not sure where they go and are not confident to catch them.  A more refined number of trunk routes provide more confidence in catching a new service.

One way around that is to reduce the number of different routes as much as possible (e.g. scrapping the 160 and assigning those same buses to a double-frequency 111), and to introduce a series of two-digit route numbers, with routes serving a common corridor sharing the same first digit.

For example, the 130, 140 and 150 all do the same thing as far as Griffith Uni, so you might number them 13, 14 and 15 respectively. Likewise, if the 330 were to gain the BUZ treatment, you'd number it 30, whilst the 333 would be re-numbered 33. For consistency, you'd want to apply the two-digit format to the rest of the BUZ routes. I mean, if it's good enough to have route 66 as it currently stands, why not? It would distinguish the Busway and BUZ series from the rest of the two-hundred-odd routes run by BT. In the Paris metropolitan area, the RER commuter rail network groups lines together by assigning a letter to a particular combination of lines, followed by a digit identifying each individual line.

[somebody]

One way around that is to reduce the number of different routes as much as possible (e.g. scrapping the 160 and assigning those same buses to a double-frequency 111), and to introduce a series of two-digit route numbers, with routes serving a common corridor sharing the same first digit.

160 & 111 makes no sense!  They should pick one or the other and just stick with that.

[MaxHeadway]

[Double post]

[somebody]

Ps here is the link to a study that show rail gives better returns than buses.http://www.vtpi.org/bus_rail.pdf.  Please read it!!!

One point from this document is you need consider what the appropriate tool for a given place is.  Sometimes it's buses, sometimes rail.  Still not really sure where any LR would go in Brisbane.

[#Metro]

Still not really sure where any LR would go in Brisbane.

The metro proposal would mean that some routes would be better going from bus straight to metro and skipping LRT (i.e. West End-City-Valley should go straight to a metro).

Route [66 + 109] is a good start for an LRT route. There are large trip generators at all points and termini for that.
SE Busway to Griffith Uni/Sunnybank might be another one. Demand in the Sunnybank/Mains Rd corridor is huge.
City-Valley-New Farm-GreenBridge-Bulimba might be another one.
City-Valley-Newstead Developments
CBD-Kelvin Grove-Paddington-The Gap
Busway trunk Routes.

Start off with small shorter lines and then extend.


Of course, this is a little way off, we have to exhaust the artic and bi-artic bus options first.
SE Busway is approaching this point faster than the other busways and will only get worse when the Eastern Busway becomes operational and starts feeding in yet even more buses into it.

Where they used to be. Down Milton Rd. Service was probably better in 1961 than it is today!

[stephenk]

36 LRT Vehicles for the SE Busway vs 154 standard buses...
Anyway, the LRT option will presumably be taken together with the Adelaide St bridge, so it is likely that the buses will retain a separate platform for their stops.

Slight problem with your calculations - Cultural Centre already handles 179 buses/hour, and 294 buses/hour at the busiest part of the SE Busway (2007 figures). This is equivalent to LRT at 41tph, and 68tph respectively. These tph are not realistically possible on a retrofitted SE Busway infrastructure.

[O_128]

In the long term, busways
will need a larger capacity vehicle that may be readily adapted to light rail or a similar vehicle
with comparable capacity and performance.

When the artic and bi-arctic options have become operational and become exhausted (i.e. full) this "similar vehicle" had better appear or the only other options will be to a) restrict passenger capacity b) implement LRT.

What is missing from the Mass Transit Report is the advances in Light Rail Technology which may overcome these technical issues or at least make them less of a problem.

Track: Concrete can be cut and the track laid and glued to the busway using polymer bonding. Using this field-tested technique, minimal relocation is required (i.e. no digging). Track can be laid at a rate of ~100m in 8 hours. Given that diversions for busway maintainence occur on weekends and often require a shut down of the busway, I don't see why this could not be done for LRT installation. It also represents a large cost saving. The MT Report did not canvass this option.

Link: http://www.trampower.co.uk/track.html

Overhead power wiring: May not be required in the future as magnetic induction could be placed in the busway. This means no overhead wiring. This is being done by Bombardier (video available).

http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/sustainability/technology/primove-catenary-free-operation?docID=0901260d800486ab

Video here: http://www.bombardier.com/files/en/supporting_docs/image_and_media/products/PRIMOVE.wmv

This is the method being used in adelaide and most likely for the gold coast. I still dont get why the eastern and northern busways dont have the tracks laid during construction

[#Metro]

But these aren't my calculations. They are from 2007 Mass Transit Report. I have posted direct links to the material.
I am not surprised that that the busway is reaching break point, especially when the Eastern Busway comes online.

IIRC the load was for the SE Busway. Not sure if this included buses such as 199, 444, 333 or 385s that use the busway at this point.

The fact that Cultural Centre is so crowded is even more reason to bring in LRT.
LRT will get its own bridge and probably its own platforms too, separate from buses, so it would not add to any congestion already present nor take away from platform space already used by the buses.

[#Metro]

This is the method being used in adelaide and most likely for the gold coast. I still dont get why the eastern and northern busways dont have the tracks laid during construction

Which method? The LR55 track or the induction power supply?

[Jon Bryant]

36 LRT Vehicles for the SE Busway vs 154 standard buses...
Anyway, the LRT option will presumably be taken together with the Adelaide St bridge, so it is likely that the buses will retain a separate platform for their stops.

Slight problem with your calculations - Cultural Centre already handles 179 buses/hour, and 294 buses/hour at the busiest part of the SE Busway (2007 figures). This is equivalent to LRT at 41tph, and 68tph respectively. These tph are not realistically possible on a retrofitted SE Busway infrastructure.

I think this clearly demonstrates my point.  It is these quoted frequency that creates a very unenjoyable/confusing/dangerous stop experience and cleary the busway is bottlenecked.  What I don't get is that you see it as ok for 294 buses/hour to navigate the busway/bus stops but it "is not realistically possible" to move 41/68tph trams or super-buses? 

This volume of trams/buses may both be too high for the busway but that only shows that additional capacity needs to be catered for somehow.  I do think that a trunk route re-planning of the busway routes is required.  As for the need to branch further out this is where the feeder buses/connecting bus routes come into play.  Switching services is only an issue when the frequency is so poor that it adds 30 mins to the trip.  When is add 5-10 minutes it is a different story all together.

[somebody]

But these aren't my calculations. They are from 2007 Mass Transit Report. I have posted direct links to the material.
I am not surprised that that the busway is reaching break point, especially when the Eastern Busway comes online.

IIRC the load was for the SE Busway. Not sure if this included buses such as 199, 444, 333 or 385s that use the busway at this point.

The fact that Cultural Centre is so crowded is even more reason to bring in LRT.
LRT will get its own bridge and probably its own platforms too, separate from buses, so it would not add to any congestion already present nor take away from platform space already used by the buses.

Main problem with that is even if trams can get to the edge of the city, then where do they go?  Adelaide St?  That means a lot less buses can get into the city.  It isn't clear that the displaced bus capacity wouldn't be more than the LR capacity which is added.

[stephenk]

It is these quoted frequency that creates a very unenjoyable/confusing/dangerous stop experience and cleary the busway is bottlenecked. 

It would be more bottlenecked using LRT

What I don't get is that you see it as ok for 294 buses/hour to navigate the busway/bus stops but it "is not realistically possible" to move 41/68tph trams or super-buses? 

68bph Super Buses, possible.
68tph Trams, not possible.

Buses have better (safe) acceleration and deceleration than trams, can overtake other buses, and do not require full speed braking distances between vehicles. This allows them to run at much higher frequency than trams.

[#Metro]

Better Transport for Brisbane.

[#Metro]

68bph Super Buses, possible.
68tph Trams, not possible.

Bi-arctic bus? Tri-arctic bus?
Why are you comparing two different vehicles with different capacity? This is the wrong way around.

One should define the demand in pax to be moved and then calculate how many vehicles (supply) are required to move it, not the other way around.
It would be like saying 2000 cars down the freeway or 2000 QR Citytrains in the same lanes, lets have the cars option, it is more frequent and less congested.

[Jon Bryant]

It is these quoted frequency that creates a very unenjoyable/confusing/dangerous stop experience and cleary the busway is bottlenecked. 

It would be more bottlenecked using LRT

What I don't get is that you see it as ok for 294 buses/hour to navigate the busway/bus stops but it "is not realistically possible" to move 41/68tph trams or super-buses? 

68bph Super Buses, possible.
68tph Trams, not possible.

Buses have better (safe) acceleration and deceleration than trams, can overtake other buses, and do not require full speed braking distances between vehicles. This allows them to run at much higher frequency than trams.

IMHO it is bottlednecked either way.  However, I just can not see not how LRT would be more bootlenecked.  Less tpa has to move more smoothly.  That is like saying Heavy Rail would be more bottlenecked than light rail.  That might be an unfair comparrison.

As I have said the greater frequency is not a good thing it is a detractant as the the current braking and accelerating practices of many bus trips I have taken.

[#Metro]

If the LRT and busway platforms are separate at Cultural Centre...
How do they cope in Melbourne, or Sydney, or Adelaide or anywhere that has LRT.

[#Metro]

... or on the Gold Coast...
Density for the Gold Coast: 972 persons/km2
Density for Brisbane: 918 persons/km2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Coast,_Queensland

The areas between the CBD and UQ St Lucia (Coronation drive/Milton Rd) are higher density than the rest of Brisbane.
If the Northern Link tunnel is built, perhaps Coronation drive & Milton Rds can be reclaimed with Light rail or busway lanes down either side/in the centre? Reclaim Coronation drive? It is certainly wide enough. Toowong is a TOD...

[stephenk]

68bph Super Buses, possible.
68tph Trams, not possible.

Bi-arctic bus? Tri-arctic bus?
Why are you comparing two different vehicles with different capacity? This is the wrong way around.

One should define the demand in pax to be moved and then calculate how many vehicles (supply) are required to move it, not the other way around.
It would be like saying 2000 cars down the freeway or 2000 QR Citytrains in the same lanes, lets have the cars option, it is more frequent and less congested.

That's not what I'm saying, and I was replying to the quote "What I don't get is that you see it as ok for 294 buses/hour to navigate the busway/bus stops but it "is not realistically possible" to move 41/68tph trams or super-buses? ". So if  the same frequency for trams and super-buses is being used in the quote, then I will use this in my response.

As I've mentioned multiple times - buses can carry more passengers on the SE Busway than if it was converted to LRT. However despite nearly 2 pages of this thread, you still don't appear to understand this.

[Jon Bryant]

I did not mean to confuse the debate by introducing super-buses but was trying to move the discussion away from bus vs tram one to a multiple routes vs trunk routes with feeder/connecting bus routes running on the busway.

My concern remains that the mutliple routes and high frequency of buses does not create an enjoyable or safe rider experince at the really busy bus stops.  Thus the debate is not just about volumes but about how attractive the services are particularly to those who we are encouraging out of their cars. 

My other point is that clearly at 294 buses/hour the system bottlenecks for a whole range of reasons from drivers to passengers and everything in between.  As you have ponted out there are operational differences that make it harder for trams to reach +60 tpa.  The less number of vehicle moving the same number of people makes for a much more controlled environment and service (like a train). 

On a grade separated busway can a tram not operate similar to a train?

[#Metro]

As I've mentioned multiple times - buses can carry more passengers on the SE Busway than if it was converted to LRT. However despite nearly 2 pages of this thread, you still don't appear to understand this.

To move exactly same amount of people, during peak hour, you need significantly fewer LRT vehicles (36) than buses. Because of this, you can run them with more time in between them (~100s apart) rather than buses (20s apart).

If congestion is defined as two vehicles or more being too close to each other in distance (and therefore also time) doesn't this imply that a 20s time gap between two buses is closer to a state of perfect congestion than two LRT vehicles almost 2 minutes apart? And remembering that they are serving an identical amount of people?

[stephenk]

On a grade separated busway can a tram not operate similar to a train?

On a grade separated LRT only, yes. In higher capacity LRTs such as Manila, KL's STAR, and London's DLR tend to be completely grade separated - like a metro but run with LRT vehicles to reduce infrastructure costs.

On a grade separated combined busway/LRT, not really, as it has to wait for it's track to be free of buses before it can berth. This in turn reduces the flexibility of the transport corridor. A busway only station can handle more passengers/hour than a similar sized combined busway/LRT station due to the buses increased flexibility.

Unfortunately the SE Busway is not completely grade separated, particularly around Cultural Centre.

[#Metro]

Superbuses (tri-artics and bi-arctics) will be put on first, but these will only delay, not prevent, the introduction of LRT.
Of course we should exhaust these options.

The idea of a Bogota style busway has merit but that would require duplication IIRC of the SE Busway- this seems unlikely though.

[stephenk]

As I've mentioned multiple times - buses can carry more passengers on the SE Busway than if it was converted to LRT. However despite nearly 2 pages of this thread, you still don't appear to understand this.

To move exactly same amount of people, during peak hour, you need significantly fewer LRT vehicles (36) than buses. Because of this, you can run them with more time in between them (~100s apart) rather than buses (20s apart).

If congestion is defined as two vehicles or more being too close to each other in distance (and therefore also time) doesn't this imply that a 20s time gap between two buses is closer to a state of perfect congestion than two LRT vehicles almost 2 minutes apart? And remembering that they are serving an identical amount of people?

You still don't get it  

A busway can handle buses 20secs apart easily.
Light rail (with 298pax vehicles as per the calculations earlier) would struggle to cope with LRT 100secs apart*.
This is due to the decreased flexibility of LRT vehicles on fixed tracks, lower LRT vehicle performance, and longer LRT vehicle separation distances.

However, the SE busway (at it's busiest point) actually handles buses approx 12secs apart (at the busiest point) and still copes.
This would be equivalent to LRT at approx 52secs apart. This frequency is impossible. Just the dwell time at Cultural Centre would be a significant proportion of this figure - yet whilst a bus dwells, other buses can pass.

* The most frequent LRT line (St Kilda Rd) in Melbourne runs a tram every 90secs. This LRT line still has a lower passenger carrying ability than the SE Busway.

[#Metro]

Which would explain prepaid-platforms and the GoCard...

But Translink general manager Luke Franzmann has insisted the route can cope with increasing demand.

He said initiatives such as pre-paid tickets and larger buses would avoid gridlock.

"We are rolling out a smart card system. Once that is in place there is less need to handle cash and less delays for the bus driver and that means we can get the buses through quicker," he said. "The Inner Northern Busway will take buses off the street through the central city and that will also improve the capacity through the South East Busway because you are getting buses through faster."

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22503468-3102,00.html

Does the SE busway really carry 23 500 pax? The BCC model has demand at almost half that...

[#Metro]

IIRC theoretical headway for bus is 1 per 10s. 1 bus every 10 seconds? Can people even board in 10 seconds?
Theoretically, other buses could pass, but only if there was a space at the Cultural centre in another bay, which there is not as the platform is only so long... and most (if not all) buses must service the stop, not bypass it, so they have to queue.

Will make enquiries re: capacity ... in the meantime low headways (NB: this is from a disruption, but you can see what I mean...)
Originally posted at http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=34427 from James Saunders.




Posted here for the purposes of research, study, criticism and review.

[#Metro]

Good Old Cultural Centre. The Riverside Expressway portal idea really should be looked into.

[Jon Bryant]

On a grade separated busway can a tram not operate similar to a train?

Unfortunately the SE Busway is not completely grade separated, particularly around Cultural Centre.

I think we all agree that the SE Busway around the Cultural Centre needs to be grade separated to solve the current bottleneck problems.  As shown by tramtrain's photo. I think the overtaking at stops is also limits as the busway gets busier.  

Hypothetically speaking, if the busway was grade separated and can run more like a metro.  Can it move more people, create a more pleasant rider experience and helpnenciurage more people onto PT?

[somebody]

On a grade separated busway can a tram not operate similar to a train?

Unfortunately the SE Busway is not completely grade separated, particularly around Cultural Centre.

I think we all agree that the SE Busway around the Cultural Centre needs to be grade separated to solve the current bottleneck problems.  As shown by tramtrain's photo. I think the overtaking at stops is also limits as the busway gets busier.  

Hypothetically speaking, if the busway was grade separated and can run more like a metro.  Can it move more people, create a more pleasant rider experience and helpnenciurage more people onto PT?

tramtrain's photo happenned after a passenger needed an ambulance, BTW.

In an ideal world, it would be fully grade separated, and double size.  Doesn't sound easy to me.

[stephenk]

IIRC theoretical headway for bus is 1 per 10s. 1 bus every 10 seconds? Can people even board in 10 seconds?

Cultural Centre handles a bus approximately every 20secs at 179 buses/hour (2007 figure).

Sorry Tramtrain, I don't wish to cause offence, but "Can people even board in 10secs?" is a really dumb question. I'm sure you can work out that a bus every xx secs, and multiple bays, means that each bus can stop for considerably longer than the xx sec frequency.