Cultural Centre Congestion

[verbatim9]

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.

Thats just ridiculous the sea of busses that queue up at the Cultural Centre. You would think on the pic alone the Transport Minister would act.

[#Metro]

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.

Not all of us are experts and I don't profess to know about all aspects of transport operations.
Some understanding ...

[stephenk]

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.

Thats just ridiculous the sea of busses that queue up at the Cultural Centre. You would think on the pic alone the Transport Minister would act.

As far as I'm aware, the queue of buses was due to a pedestrian accident.

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.

Not all of us are experts and I don't profess to know about all aspects of transport operations.
Some understanding ...

I would be more understanding if you didn't keep coming out with ill thought out, unrealistic, and obsessive ideas. Be more realistic, and you might be taken more seriously.

I would recommend you read "Urban Transit Systems and Technology", Vukan R. Vuchic, 2007, Wiley, USA. A very interesting read. The publishers used two of my photos for the book.

[ozbob]

We don't always agree with each others ideas and so forth.  Exploring different points of view can lead to new insights.

Thanks for the reference too.  

[Jon Bryant]

As far as I'm aware, the queue of buses was due to a pedestrian accident.

I have seen it backed up when there is no accident.  Not as bad as the photos but backed up none the less.  Maybe 10 or so buses.  All it taks is a slow load of a bus.

I would be more understanding if you didn't keep coming out with ill thought out, unrealistic, and obsessive ideas. Be more realistic, and you might be taken more seriously.

Hang on a second.  There are a large number of city across this globe building LRT systems, including our own Gold Coast, and there is even a city that replaced or is replacing a busway with LRT due to bottlenecking.  So converting the busway to LRT is hardly a ill thought out, unrealistic, and obsessive idea.  

I also think a lot of references to reports, etc have been highlighted that show that it is more than viable.  Also I repeat this is not just about total volume either but about quality of service and the rider experience. The current situation at the Cultural Centre discourages many form catching PT.

We need to be encouraging much high % of all trips to PT and moving significantly numbers of poeple than we do today.  This requires the development of transport networks that are grade separated from traffic and pedestrians.  Personally I think the bus has had its day as a fast long haul routes and will over time be redirected towards services providng local connectivity to and interconnectivity between heavy rail, LRT and Metros.

[#Metro]

The big question is...

... when do we get rid of that horrible Melbourne St Portal / death trap / head on accident waiting to happen.
All it will take is someone to be run over at that location, and all BUZ-hell will break loose.

Being at Cultural Centre is like being in a rugby scrum. OMG my bus just docked at the far end of the platform... did the driver see me? Run, push, shove...

Cultural Centre is very busy, get the joke?

[longboi]

Plenty of people have already been run over (and have died) at that intersection.

[somebody]

Plenty of people have already been run over (and have died) at that intersection.

I think there have been some deaths.  Any since the two in 2006 referenced here: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25459687-952,00.html ?

But the question is, would it be any better with trams?  Going under a tram is virtually certain death unless you miss the wheels.

Besides, it's an esoteric argument unless a way can be found to get the tram from the busway over the river AND through the city AND not cause catastrophic congestion during construction.  A new bridge might address some of that.

[Jon Bryant]

Agree a new bridge and even underground line along adealide street is a MUST to fix the problem bus, tram or horse and cart.  It is in the CBD Master Plan so lets sart building this instead of the stupid road tunnels.

[#Metro]

Hundreds of buses leave and enter Brisbane's CBD via the Cultural Centre bus station every day and Brisbane City Council has come under fire following the deaths of other pedestrians at the same intersection.

The intersection is notorious for pedestrians, cars and bus drivers all taking their chances against red lights, and in November 2006 a man was killed when he was hit by a bus while standing on the median strip.

Earlier that year a cyclist died after being swept under the back wheels of a Brisbane City Council bus next to the Queensland Museum.

Yes, it is dangerous.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25459687-952,00.html

[longboi]

Plenty of people have already been run over (and have died) at that intersection.

I think there have been some deaths.  Any since the two in 2006 referenced here: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25459687-952,00.html ?

But the question is, would it be any better with trams?  Going under a tram is virtually certain death unless you miss the wheels.

Besides, it's an esoteric argument unless a way can be found to get the tram from the busway over the river AND through the city AND not cause catastrophic congestion during construction.  A new bridge might address some of that.

I think a pedestrian overpass linking the CC overbridge with South Brisbane station side and the other side of Melbourne St.

[somebody]

I think a pedestrian overpass linking the CC overbridge with South Brisbane station side and the other side of Melbourne St.

Yeah, that sounds like it would help a fair bit.  But some people would still rather use the at grade crossing.

[stephenk]

There are a large number of city across this globe building LRT systems, including our own Gold Coast, and there is even a city that replaced or is replacing a busway with LRT due to bottlenecking.  So converting the busway to LRT is hardly a ill thought out, unrealistic, and obsessive idea. 

I'm not against LRT, in many cases such as the Gold Coast it is the obvious choice.

What I am against is the conversion of the SE Busway to LRT because:
1) It would cost a lot of money to convert - this would be better spent on other infrastructure projects.
2) It would not increase the passenger carrying capacity of the busway (and would probably decrease it!).
Thus to convert to LRT there would be huge cost for no benefit - a bit like spending $1000 on square wheels for your car.
LRT may be a good option for completely new alignments, but not for conversion of existing alignments.

Whilst Seattle has converted from busway to LRT - I strongly doubt the system operates anywhere near to the capacity that Brisbane does (Seattle's bus tunnel handled just 24 bus routes, and now 22 bus routes plus the LRT every 7.5-15mins). I'm talking actual capacity here, not theoretical maximums. $2.1billion for a 200 person tram every 7.5mins - was it really worth it? Oh, and the end to end journey time was 4 minutes longer with LRT!

Besides, it's an esoteric argument unless a way can be found to get the tram from the busway over the river AND through the city AND not cause catastrophic congestion during construction. 

Glad to see someone talking some sense in this thread!

I think a pedestrian overpass linking the CC overbridge with South Brisbane station side and the other side of Melbourne St.

Certainly some form of grade seperation is required at this intersection. A pedestrian overpass would make it safer for pedestrians, but wouldn't help the bus (or LRT  ) bottleneck. To allow for more free-flowing bus traffic, a grade seperation of the busway and road would be required. This would probably be cheaper if the road was raised, but would remove access between Melbourne St (West End side) and Grey St. The road could be lowered into an underpass, but this would cost a lot more and would be very disruptive to all during construction.

[longboi]

I think a pedestrian overpass linking the CC overbridge with South Brisbane station side and the other side of Melbourne St.

Certainly some form of grade seperation is required at this intersection. A pedestrian overpass would make it safer for pedestrians, but wouldn't help the bus (or LRT  ) bottleneck. To allow for more free-flowing bus traffic, a grade seperation of the busway and road would be required. This would probably be cheaper if the road was raised, but would remove access between Melbourne St (West End side) and Grey St. The road could be lowered into an underpass, but this would cost a lot more and would be very disruptive to all during construction.

I hope you don't think I like the idea of LR replacing the busway because I agree that is not desirable.

Agreed grade separation is required. Raising Grey St could be a possibility.

[O_128]

I think a pedestrian overpass linking the CC overbridge with South Brisbane station side and the other side of Melbourne St.

Certainly some form of grade seperation is required at this intersection. A pedestrian overpass would make it safer for pedestrians, but wouldn't help the bus (or LRT  ) bottleneck. To allow for more free-flowing bus traffic, a grade seperation of the busway and road would be required. This would probably be cheaper if the road was raised, but would remove access between Melbourne St (West End side) and Grey St. The road could be lowered into an underpass, but this would cost a lot more and would be very disruptive to all during construction.

I hope you don't think I like the idea of LR replacing the busway because I agree that is not desirable.

Agreed grade separation is required. Raising Grey St could be a possibility.


Do we really want another ugly overpasslike milton now has. An underpass is much more desirable long term

[somebody]

Do we really want another ugly overpasslike milton now has. An underpass is much more desirable long term

We'd really want something that would avoid the need for the buses to negotiate two sets of lights there.  An overpass for Grey St would get the through Grey St traffic out of the way, but be otherwise of no benefit to the buses.  If an underpass could go under Melbourne AND Grey Sts, and be constructible, then that would probably be the ideal solution, but you'd still probably have to deal with the 199s etc crossing Grey St.  But it still doesn't solve the problem of the Cultural Centre not really being large enough for what is demanded of it.

[#Metro]

I will write about this more later.
I know that people might not like some ideas I float, but they are there for constructive criticism only.
If people have their own plans, post them...


Long term solution is Metro + ICRCS (assuming funds can be obtained for ICRCS)
I think the long term solution will be to have all non-BUZ services terminate at the metro stations or rail stations (i.e. one option is to have 130 and 150 will terminate & transfer at a QR Citytrain station in 2026).

A second busway portal into the CBD
I also think the best long term solution to fix Cultural Centre is simply not to use it for new services/extra buses that will be added on and use a new portal instead (in conjunction with terminate & transfer to a Metro?)

This is the logic behind rocket buses going via the Riverside Expressway and not Cultural Centre.
Sure that "busiest section" can cope with buses every 12 sec or so, but I really doubt the Cultural Centre could cope with that (i.e All the rockets going via Cultural Centre). Though this might sound odd now, consider the situation in 2026. We can't count on the Riverside Expressway because congestion on it will most certainly be so much worse than today, it is mixed traffic with cars and requires passage through 2 traffic light sets (there goes the 12 sec headway leading to a pile up which will back up into the SE Busway and block it).

This would be achieved through the installation of a second busway portal into the CBD.


The image posted is from the BCC Mass Transit Report 2007, http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2698, it is posted here for the purposes of research, study, criticism and review.

[#Metro]

I'm not against LRT, in many cases such as the Gold Coast it is the obvious choice.

I don't agree with this line. Why was it the obvious choice? Capacity?
There was a large campaign to get a BRT solution on the grounds of speed, ability to run off the main alignment and into streets, as well as frequency...

[stephenk]

I'm not against LRT, in many cases such as the Gold Coast it is the obvious choice.

I don't agree with this line. Why was it the obvious choice? Capacity?
There was a large campaign to get a BRT solution on the grounds of speed, ability to run off the main alignment and into streets, as well as frequency...

Wow, Tramtrain arguing that LRT isn't the obvious choice. 

The Gold Coast has very low PT ridership. Thus LRT would be more attractive than a busway (which would really be bus lanes). This PT corridor is also linear, thus it is suited to LRT running along a trunk route, as opposed to Brisbane which is more radial. If this PT corridor is provided with it's own right of way, then there should be no capacity issues on the line. There are also no infrastructure constraints that prevent LRT such as steep hills. Yes, LRT will cost more than a busway/lanes, but I think the Gold Coast really needs something "major" that will move people from using cars. Not running the LRT to/from a rail line at outset is dumb though.

Personally, I think an elevated light metro (VAL like) or (dare I say it) monorail may have been a solution. It would provide limited impact on road lanes, and fully segregated metro operation. However it would have been even more expensive, and probably attracted more NIMBYs.

[cartoonbirdhaus]

IMO, Light rail's suitable for the Gold Coast corridor, as not only is there a high population density, but you also have major trip-generators at both ends, creating high demand in either direction. In Brisbane, on the other hand, even the high-frequency routes tend to terminate in outer areas with not much around them, e.g. Moggill (444) and Waterworks (385).

[Edited to correct spelling]

[#Metro]

Wow, Tramtrain arguing that LRT isn't the obvious choice.

Not at all. It was a very close decision between BRT and LRT options - Graham Currie and the Stop Light Rail group and the GC BRT groups attest to this. So I don't think the solution was "Obvious" in any sense of the word. Indeed the publications had to use ambiguous or general language because they weren't certain what the final decision would be until the analysis had been completed and the mode confirmed.

I was also questioning the capacity constraints as as well - would LRT on this line have a greater capacity or would BRT have a greater capacity due to the lower headways? I'm trying to understand why it appears that the headways argument against LRT applies in Brisbane... but not on the Gold Coast? Isn't BRT also "major"?

IMO, Light rail's suitable for the Gold Coast corridor, as not only is there a high population density, but you also have major trip-generators at both ends, creating high demend in either direction. In Brisbane, on the other hand, even the high-frequency routes tend to terminate in outer areas with not much around them, e.g. Moggill (444) and Waterworks (385).

This explanation sounds reasonable.

[somebody]

We can't count on the Riverside Expressway because congestion on it will most certainly be so much worse than today

With some minor works*, we could make a bus lane in both directions.  Even on current bus numbers that is probably able to be justified.  That would be a massive increase in capacity, with the next bottleneck being one of Buranda Station, the Woolloongabba station intersection, the Boggo Rd busway intersection or the Eastern Busway intersection.

* Traffic from Stanley St should be heading in to the 2nd to left lane if the left lane were to become a bus lane.

[stephenk]

I was also questioning the capacity constraints as as well - would LRT on this line have a greater capacity or would BRT have a greater capacity due to the lower headways? I'm trying to understand why it appears that the headways argument against LRT applies in Brisbane... but not on the Gold Coast? Isn't BRT also "major"?

Capacity depends upon your infrastructure. In the SE Busway there are two lanes at stations/direction - multiple platform bays, and through roads. This is a large amount of infrastructure (space wise), but allows a lot of flexibility for buses and thus a relatively high capacity. Buses do not need to move in convoy, expresses can easily overtake stoppers, and a bus with a short dwell can overtake a bus with a longer dwell - this suits the SE Busway's mix of routes. If you retrofitted the above infrastructure LRT with fixed track, you do not have this flexibility as the LRT would only be able to use one lane/direction, and thus capacity decreases.

The Gold Coast LRT will have just one lane through each stations/direction. This reduces flexibility and maximum capacity as LRT vehicles cannot overtake each other, but I doubt that this will be an issue for the capacity required. A busway with similar infrastructure would have a similar capacity to LRT as the buses cannot pass each other and would have to move in convoy (i.e like a train). Compared to the SE Busway, the Gold Coast LRT will require a narrower corridor at stations (one lane/track instead of two lanes), and probably shorter stations as well (for 1 25-40m(ish) train length, as opposed to circa 5 buses). Outside of stations LRT requires a slightly narrower corridor than buses. Using this single lane/direction infrastructure LRT will still cost a lot more than a busway, but it's all about the image and attractiveness of LRT over buses to attract passengers. I can see the bus campaigners point, and I wonder of the increased cost of LRT over bus will be matched the increase in passengers along this corridor.

[#Metro]

Not to do with Cultual Centre Directly:

IMO, Light rail's suitable for the Gold Coast corridor, as not only is there a high population density, but you also have major trip-generators at both ends, creating high demend in either direction. In Brisbane, on the other hand, even the high-frequency routes tend to terminate in outer areas with not much around them, e.g. Moggill (444) and Waterworks (385).

On second thoughts Adelaide isn't a strip development- it is more like a city and suburbs model. They are home to the O-Bahn high speed busway, but they have decided to go for LRT expansion. The Glenelg LRT serves line-haul function, and travels quite far from the city, and they are expanding this rather than leave the line as it is and just use more buses. The service runs down the centre of the main roads- why not a BRT option? They have the buses and the technology... so why did they choose LRT instead, and it is probably more expensive too?

Just trying to see how everything is consistent and fits together...

In Brisbane we have trip generators too- everything along the 109 + 66 route. Then there is CBD Portside, CBD-New Farm and CBD-Toowong...

[#Metro]

Oh and another thing. I went to Cultural Centre this week.
Tourists got on board and fumbled for cash, then they got out a $50 note! So much time was wasted.
Cultural Centre should become a closed station. Swipe on the entry points and then jump on the bus.
It would also allow entry through the back door.

[cartoonbirdhaus]

In Brisbane we have trip generators too- everything along the 109 + 66 route

Oh, definitely! I was referring to the outer stretches. Those demand-generators further in are pretty well served, due to Northside and Southside services (plus the 66) overlapping. (However, I am disappointed that the re-routed 109 still won't be a full-time service, and will continue to do that stupid loop through the CBD.)

[#Metro]

I wish the would just merge the two.

[cartoonbirdhaus]

That would make it simpler: one less route number to remember! As for the Gabba, it's already served by one BUZ route (200), with this supplemented by the 100/110/115 and all those all-stoppers.

[#Metro]

Yes, there is a lot of duplication. 160, 555 and a browns plains (say 140) should permanently go via Riverside Expressway.

[somebody]

Yes, there is a lot of duplication. 160, 555 and a browns plains (say 140) should permanently go via Riverside Expressway.

160, Huh?  That's a short working to move pax between all the intermediate stations on the busway.  That one should NOT take the Capt Cook Bridge. 

That would make it simpler: one less route number to remember! As for the Gabba, it's already served by one BUZ route (200), with this supplemented by the 100/110/115 and all those all-stoppers.

Not to mention 117/124/125/172 and virtually every other 2xx city service.

In the future that will probably change.  The 2xx's will be taken out of there with the Eastern Busway, and the 1xx's should (probably) already be gone down the Boggo Road busway's O'Keefe St portal.

[dwb]

It wouldn't necessarily have to be "on" the Riverside Expressway, surely it could be next to it?

The big question is...
... when do we get rid of that horrible Melbourne St Portal / death trap / head on accident waiting to happen.
All it will take is someone to be run over at that location, and all BUZ-hell will break loose.
Being at Cultural Centre is like being in a rugby scrum. OMG my bus just docked at the far end of the platform... did the driver see me? Run, push, shove...
Cultural Centre is very busy, get the joke?

[dwb]

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3756.0

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Car ban a bridge too far

Car ban a bridge too far
Tony Moore
November 22, 2011 - 3:00AM

Neither the state government nor Brisbane City Council plan to ban cars from Victoria Bridge, despite expert opinion it would help ease the build-up of buses in the area.

There are now more than 200 buses on the bridge between South Bank and the CBD an hour in the morning and afternoon peak periods.

It has increased by 15 buses an hour in the past two years.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Two public transport experts have recommended planners close the two car lanes across the bridge to give buses extra lanes.

Professor Peter Spearritt from University of Queensland and Rail - Back on Track's Robert Dow said that step would provide the space for growth the city needs.

However neither council nor the government consider the move necessary.

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said council had no plans to remove cars from the bridge, but conceded there was increasing congestion near the Cultural Centre busway.

"The Go Between Bridge was opened in July 2010 and has provided an alternative river crossing for motor vehicle users that has cut travel times by up to 15 minutes between South Brisbane and the northern suburbs," he said.

Council's 2006 City Centre Master Plan recommended a feasibility study into an Adelaide Street bridge start, but set no timelines or targets.

Cr Quirk said there had been no talks between the government and council over the past 12 months about a future Adelaide Street bridge.

He said a new Adelaide Street bridge was a recommendation in a 20-year timeframe.

The government said it would tackle the congestion around the Victoria Bridge bus station by using Go Card machines, bus stop supervisors and expanding the busway network.

However a spokesman for the Department of Transport and Main Roads said it was pinning its hopes on the federal government approving its Cross River Rail project to free up traffic across the river.

"Cross River Rail remains our top priority when it comes to funding for extra public transport crossings of the river," a spokesman said.

"That's why we put it at the top of our Infrastructure Australia wish-list."

Infrastructure Australia last week rated the $6.9 billion project as "ready to proceed" and a business case for the project is close to being finalised.

A Translink spokesman said the Riverside Expressway was recently used for two new services: the 205 Carindale Heights to City bus and 217 Carindale to City bus.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/car-ban-a-bridge-too-far-20111121-1nqx2.html

[somebody]

The solution is multi faceted, but part of it is quite obvious IMO: 15 peak frequency on BUZ

[ozbob]

Indeed, and those things were mentioned as well.  I think there might be more to come ...   

[#Metro]

Ultimately I think something has to give. If you put more lanes on the bridge, relief would only be temporary. The weakest link is city streets where it is class C ROW and subject to surface traffic delays.

[ozbob]

All of these are non-answers. CC handles 9000 pphd in peak hour!
Perhaps when major Ottawa-style bus jams start happening regularly their hands will be forced.

It is also not clear how CRR will free up space. CC is already at capacity with 180 buses/hour, and this will only grow further.

What is needed:

* All door boarding instituted at CC and other busway stations. Buses have two doors and yet we come up with fanciful excuses and insist on only using one. Doesn't make sense.

* Send non-BUZ routes over the Captain Cook Bridge full time.
I'm thinking things like 110/124/125/116/117/184/185/460/172/203/204/135 etc etc.

* I am against Simon's 15 minute BUZ plan personally, but I would concede that more rockets might provide relief.

* Bus lane on Captain Cook Bridge

Something to note: All these ideas (more rockets) or sending buses over C/Cook Bridge all require the network to move closer to one based on interchange. If I'm heading for Mater Hill, I'm going to have to change buses...

Agree with the additional points re bus lanes and route variations and so forth.  I suggested that in isolation a car-less Victoria bridge won't do much and was unlikely anyway because of the political perception of funnelling to the Go between.  I spent some time detailing the necessary things like route changes and bus priority on Captain Cook Bridge and so forth.  Also Adelaide St bridge by itself won't do much either. It needs comprehensive strategy changes.  Also the need for infrastructure changes with the present set up Melbourne St portal and CC.

As you suggest something is going to have to give here. It is getting worse and now bus-jam is really a daily occurrence.

[somebody]

* Send non-BUZ routes over the Captain Cook Bridge full time.
I'm thinking things like 110/124/125/116/117/184/185/460/172/203/204/135 etc etc.

I'd be against this.  Speeding up the all stoppers makes little sense.  And the 110 is infrequent and has no alternative which might go via South Bank.  And that is worse if you actually get around to using the Boggo Rd busway, at least O/B.

* I am against Simon's 15 minute BUZ plan personally, but I would concede that more rockets might provide relief.

Don't worry.  I'm sure federal funding will pay for our mismanagement of our own infrastructure.  /sarcasm

Something to note: All these ideas (more rockets) or sending buses over C/Cook Bridge all require the network to move closer to one based on interchange. If I'm heading for Mater Hill, I'm going to have to change buses...

Indeed.  Or wait longer for the direct service to come.

[somebody]

If you really want to reduce congestion here, you could remove the Toombul routes.  Any others?

[somebody]

Yet again, in Brisbane, we are talking about infrastructure to solve something which can be fixed by intelligence.