Suggestions for coping with the PT network without CRR

[ozbob]

The failure to move forward immediately with CRR is going to further worsen public transport in SEQ.  There are I think things that can be done to improve the system to some degree though.  Please post your thoughts in this thread.

1.  There needs to be a widening of the peaks on all modes.  Peak capacity can be spread into a longer time frame, this can then move a lot more pax than now.  Obviously this is limited to some degree but there are many who with the proper support from Government and other major employers could have varying work hours.  I am uncertain at this stage whether coupling this with incentive fares (eg. changing off peak from after 7.00pm to 2am to perhaps 6.30pm to 7am?) would also help drive change.

2.  The Tennyson loop line does allow the opportunity for some more services on the Gold Coast line, it has proven to be an important backup during problems between Moorooka and Roma St many times during the past few years (and when issues Roma St - Sherwood as well!).

3.  Re-establishing bus priority will be essential.  This must be part of the strategy to reduce road congestion.  Many will argue that they need the lanes for cars, but the simple reality is one bus = 60 cars or thereabouts.

4.  A rethink on the 'one seat mantra'.  Frequency on trunk routes, bus and rail needs to be fed properly.   I am past possible inconvenience for some of changing seats, providing the frequency is there I don't think it is going to be a longer term issue.  Far better to have widespread reasonably frequent feeders into high frequency core routes for maximum uptake.

Just some thoughts to get going ...

[BrizCommuter]

2.  The Tennyson loop line does allow the opportunity for some more services on the Gold Coast line, it has proven to be an important backup during problems between Moorooka and Roma St many times during the past few years (and when issues Roma St - Sherwood as well!).

I doubt this will solve any capacity issues as:
1) Gold Coast trains will have to make a conflicting move - decreasing realiability and max system capacity.
2) The Ipswich/Springfield Lines will be equally as deserving as the Gold Coast Line to claim the 2-3tph still available on the mains.
3) It will upset the segmentation of the system - limiting scheduling flexibility, and causing knock on unreliability.
Tennyson Line is only useful when trains need to be diverted between Roma St and Sherwood/Yeerongpilly.

[Golliwog]

Encouraging counter peak travel also should be looked at. This wouldn't really help with shifting the current passenger load around as they would already be traveling to their destination, but it would be a way of increasing patronage.

Finding ways to increase the accessibility of the network. By this I mean making it easier to get too and from the bus stop. Most aren't that bad but some are. For example the 362 goes past a retirement village on Samford road (HERE) but due to traffic on Samford Rd it only travels on Samford Rd when it's heading to Mitchelton (and even that is across the road which doesn't have an over/underpass or lights, just a safety zone pedestrian crossing). When it heads to The Gap it goes via Satinay street which is one street back from Samford Rd.

Encourageing travel that isn't just suburbs to the City, but suburb to suburb, or suburb to hub. You can carry a lot more passengers if your bus/train fills up more than once and empties out at various places along the route. And I'm not just talking about encouraging development around hubs like Toowong and Park Rd, but ones further out like Kenmore or Chermside or Brookside or Stafford or Garden City. You see so many shopping centers and all they provide is shops and maybe a bit of residential next door (there are densities increasing near Chermside) but what would happen if they put in an office block on top?

[ozbob]

I have sat on Sherwood at peak and watched Gold Coasters come around during peaks.  It is not a preferred option but it is one that think may well be used.  QR have looked at doing this in the past and with the looming constrictions on Merivale might be good for a couple of services.

I have also  noticed counter peak positioning movements using Tennyson as well, it is one way of putting trains out past Moorooka against the incoming am peak tide ..

[ozbob]

We have to grasp reality, the system is heading for meltdown, we do need to think a little bit radically folks.

Nothing is too hard IMHO, just requires a bit of vision and clear thinking. 

[ozbob]

Fleeting on the NCL is one way of getting more trains through.

[#Metro]

Encourageing travel that isn't just suburbs to the City, but suburb to suburb, or suburb to hub.

Yes, pity that the way the network is, few suburb-suburb or suburb-hub trips are observed, and then this is touted
as "proof" that nobody wants to make these trips (when it is easy to see the carpark full, so all these trips are being made, but
they are being  made in car).

I would like to see one way loop operation disappear. And hail and ride sections with no bus stops disappear as well.
Few people want to travel in a one way loop (route 198 I am looking at you). If there is going to be hail and ride, fair
enough, but an actual bus stop to improve legibility would be handy.

[ozbob]

Yes, cross suburban routes need serious improvement.

Some feedback received, thanks!

There are still a number of smaller projects that can be done that will help extend the operational life of the Brisbane rail system.

Things like extra crossovers at Toombul to allow more options for avoiding conflicts with the Airport and Doomben trains.

An extension of the third rail on the interstate track to allow Gold Coast trains greater options.

Upgrading and full signalling of the non used extra track between Bowen Hills and Albion.

It needs the planners to get out and observe what is happening every day during peak periods instead of just using modelling to tell them what to do.

These planners talk about paths, but one of the biggest killers of paths is the often excessive dwell times at Roma Street and Central so that on time running can be achieved.  For example, if every train only had a maximum of 2 minutes at central they could run another 4 or 5 trains each way per hour in the peaks.  More trains mean slightly less people per train and then faster boarding times. 

These are the sorts of things that will put off many of the congestion issues until the Cross River Link can be completed.

[#Metro]

Upgrading and full signalling of the non used extra track between Bowen Hills and Albion.

Hello, what is this? That's news!

These planners talk about paths, but one of the biggest killers of paths is the often excessive dwell times at Roma Street and Central so that on time running can be achieved.

Yes, the "dwell from hell".

Maybe the Metro Melbourne idea could be adopted- flags and whistles at Roma St and Central...

[Golliwog]

That is a fair point about where the timing point should be. If they're running ahead of schedule, perhaps they should wait outside the congested area. Eg: Ferny Grove trains heading to the City could wait at Windsor. Basically waiting somewhere where theres no train right behind them that could also be delayed. Although stops to change crews would still occur.

Off the top of my head, I think the extra track Bowen Hills to Albion is actually a yard track.

[#Metro]

Oh really?
Can anyone identify it from nearmap or googlemaps?

[somebody]

In peak, if you are early by 2 minutes you would be facing a red signal in most cases.

[Golliwog]

Oh really?
Can anyone identify it from nearmap or googlemaps?

Most easily visible HERE. But if you follow it from end to end it merges back into the mains before the FG joins the suburbans to the south and to the north a little after Breakfast Creek but before Albion station, meaning it would really only be usful to store an extra service, but even then it attaches to the northbound main so wouldn't really needed to be used (from my understanding anyway) or if you were to use it for south bound services, it would involve conflicting moves.

[BrizCommuter]

Oh really?
Can anyone identify it from nearmap or googlemaps?

Most easily visible HERE. But if you follow it from end to end it merges back into the mains before the FG joins the suburbans to the south and to the north a little after Breakfast Creek but before Albion station, meaning it would really only be usful to store an extra service, but even then it attaches to the northbound main so wouldn't really needed to be used (from my understanding anyway) or if you were to use it for south bound services, it would involve conflicting moves.

Yes, the track is completely useless for increasing running line capacity, and only really useful for reversing trains as an alternative to Mayne (and even then there is a conflicting move).


http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2011/01/plan-b.html
A few ideas on how rail could cope until 2020.

[ozbob]

Yes I like the notion of 'un-expressing' some of the Gold Coasters inner areas.  Might be necessary. 

There is a lot more capacity yet on rail, the new Ipswich timetable will be a major improvement in that regard.  Running parallel buses is just wasting limited resources, tap into the rail capacity and free up buses for other tasks.

[ozbob]

The failure to electrify and setup the 4th line Corinda to Darra for normal suburban operations is now coming home to bite bigtime.  We have been highlighting this stuffup for a while now, there is also the failure to do the 4th platform at Oxley.  Both things which could have been in place now had a little more vision been imparted from above and very cost effective.  The cost now will be many times higher, and they will be needed.

I have been watching coal trains on the mains of late ... the 'freight' line is just sitting there ...  

Signalling upgrades are going on here and there, whether or not there will be enough funding to radically improve the system overall is a moot point.  

There is no hope for much more bus capacity into the CBD during peaks, still a bit in rail.  Eastern busway is as much a problem as a solution.

Spreading out the peaks is going to be a key strategy for all modes.  There will need to be carrots to help this along (off peak fares, significant).

[ozbob]

Dwell times, Bowen Hills necessary crew changes, Central ... la de da la de da la de da ... Roma St .... la de da, la de da   oh, all aboard!  5 minutes could be saved easily, if they are late they are late ...  bring out the paddles, will keep the staff on the platforms engaged as well ..

[ozbob]

The special Community Reference Group held at Roma St station 2009 (I think it was) on rolling stock design covered the need for more room in the short haul suburban trains, better fit-out in the interurbans.  Seems nothing heard since ...

[BrizCommuter]

There is a lot more capacity yet on rail, the new Ipswich timetable will be a major improvement in that regard. 

Post 2011 timetable, there will be very little spare track capacity. Thus my rather alarmed blog post yesterday is in no way an overreaction! Post 2011 timetable, there are only be 2-3tph slots still available on the mains in the busiest am peak hour (or even 0tph according to some sources). I would expect that in the late 2011 suburbans timetable, there will also be very few am peak track slots left available. If the extra passenger capacity provided by the 2011 timetables is eaten up within a few years, then Brisbane has a big problem!

More efficient timetabling and train loading will be required to make maximum use of track capacity. An example of more efficient timetabling and train loading would include electrifying the 4th track between Corinda to Darra to allow for homogenous services every 7.5mins (ish) on both the Springfield and Ipswich Lines, rather than the randomly alternating 6 and 12 minute gaps in the draft timetable which will result in uneven loadings. Another example would be to fill up express services with spare capacity at inner city stations (e.g Gold Coasters to call at stations between Yeerongpilly to Park Road, or if there is spare capacity on Ipswich express services they could call at Toowong). The 20 minute standing definition of overcrowding will need to be thrown out the window!

[#Metro]

Ok, you asked for radical ideas, with huge hesitiation, here's mine:

Abolish express services.

on the Ipswich line. Stop all stations.
on the Cleveland line. Stop all stations.
on the Beenleigh line. Stop all stations.

I suggest add costs for fortifications and security for QR, people are not going to be happy to see express running cut. REALLY not happy!

There is no doubt QR needs more trains for increased capacity, with CRR or without CRR. These should be 3 door at least. So any new trains to be put on order, should have 3 doors. I would be supporting 3 door strongly.

[somebody]

One thing that is necessary is a bigger Robina stabling to allow for greater "temporal spreading" on the Gold Coast line.

Ok, you asked for radical ideas, with huge hesitiation, here's mine:

Abolish express services.

stephenk would love that one!  Except for the Gold Coast which was somehow exempt from his express-hating.

One problem is that it utilises the rolling stock less efficiently, i.e. you need a bigger fleet to service the same patronage.  Another is that it doesn't allow for patronage beyond Manly well unless you do some weird timetabling.  If trains come at even intervals to/from Manly, then the ones which can't extend to Cleveland will be underutilised.

[ozbob]

rather than the randomly alternating 6 and 12 minute gaps in the draft timetable which will result in uneven loadings

This might seem a bit odd, but I think that is deliberate to allow further placement of services in the future without major rewrites.

Post 2011 timetable, there will be very little spare track capacity.

The thing is to keep high frequency peak loadings going a bit earlier and later, spread the loadings. At the core peak at the moment there is not much slack but either side and off peak there is.  This is where as a community we are going to have to change a bit in travel patterns.  Some won't be able to change much others will, especially if there is an incentive of sorts.  I think we are all on the same page here, we at least should give it a go.

They plan to move to 20% next year anyway, there will be scope to go to 30% and increase the the off peak timings so it is a bit more attractive.  Just rolling along to gridlock and failure is not the way.

[#Metro]

One problem is that it utilises the rolling stock less efficiently, i.e. you need a bigger fleet to service the same patronage.  Another is that it doesn't allow for patronage beyond Manly well unless you do some weird timetabling.  If trains come at even intervals to/from M

Or if you put on- dare I say it- rail shuttle to and from Manly.
WOW! People are going to hate that! 

The more I think about it, the more a vote killer this CRR delay seems.
People don't know it yet, but if they catch Beenleigh/GC/Cleveland, they are going to be impacted.

[#Metro]

One problem is that it utilises the rolling stock less efficiently, i.e. you need a bigger fleet to service the same patronage.  Another is that it doesn't allow for patronage beyond Manly well unless you do some weird timetabling.  If trains come at even intervals to/from Manly, then the ones which can't extend to Cleveland will be underutilised.

Yes and no. Getting more trains might be faster and cheaper than the alternative. The patronage would not be the same either IMHO- during peak hour demand for travel always exceeds supply. If you put more trains on in peak hour, patronage will expand to fill them, no worries.

[ozbob]

State Government, time to request the BCC to put back proper bus priority on Stagnation Drive and elsewhere.   If they don't want to play, legislate or do what is needed.  The public will back you, particularly when they see the changes happening, faster bus commutes, less road traffic, dare I say it a WIN WIN!

[ozbob]

If you put more trains on in peak hour

The problem is of course there is not much more room for more trains on in peak hour.  Where there is adequate track amplification eg. Darra to Milton, it is sensible to have two corridors express and stoppers,  the expresses get there quicker and allow more services overall hence greater capacity overall.  

Because of the track complications Yeerongpilly to Roma St, some of the Gold Coasters could be stopping.  This allows more short ride pax and a better frequency overall.  Depends on how well loaded the trains are on arrival at say Yeerongpilly, and from all accounts not overloaded by any stretch of the imagination.  Some of the funniest moments I have observed on trains to town in the morning peak is when there is sometimes a short parallel run into Roma St with an ex Ippy well loaded (usually a solid gold EMU) bursting at the gunwales, along side an ex Gold Coaster with plenty of room.  It seems the entire load of passengers on the Ippy just  

[ozbob]

Upgrade UQ Lakes Bus station, put the petty polyticks away and do it please!

[#Metro]

Yes, pass The Coronation Drive Act (2011) and legislate it off BCC, declare it a main road or whatever.

[mufreight]

The bottom line is that the money that will be needed to be spent for marginal increases in track capacity is greater than that which would be spent to commence construction to provide the overall capacity for the next 20 - 30 + years.
There are choke points on the system at the present time and these need to be addressed in a meaningful manner, all the additional train sets in the world are of little use if they are in gridlock and forced to operate at minimal speeds.
The key choke points are at this time the CRR, Bowen Hills to Eagle Junction, Lawnton to Petrie, a flyover connection from the mains at Eagle Junction to the Airport line, duplication and realignment Beerburrum - Glasshouse and Palmwoods - Eudlo third track Darra - Rerdbank with wireing of the fourth track Corinda - Darra and the fourth platform at Oxley.
The NCL is at capacity hence the bus services being operated in place of rail between Caboolyure and Nambour at the present time
The present junction arrangements between the Ipswich line and the Tennyson line at Sherwood and between the Coast line and the Tennyson line at Yeeroongpilly limit the numbers of services to and from the coast that can be effectively operated via that route without greatly affecting the other services operating on the Gold Coast and Ipswich lines.
Yes the number of train paths through the CBD and over the Merivale Street bridge can be tweaked by a total signaling revamp at a cost of possibly in excess of $400-500 million to gain three perhaps four more train paths per hour to gain perhaps two years relief but to create a system that even the slightest delay will impact excessively on the entire rail system.
The reality is that CRR should not be being defered at this time , it should if anything be being fast-tracked now to relieve the pressure on the presently inadequate public transport road system.

[mufreight]

Upgrade UQ Lakes Bus station, put the petty polyticks away and do it please!

Through route the bus services at UQ Lakes to Indoorpilly and Toowong.   

[somebody]

I think you guys are missing my point about rollingstock.  Take the Caboolture line.  The proposed timetable, let's say it requires 12 trains to operate a 3 minute headway.  If you threw that timetable out and instead ran an all stopping train every 3 minutes between Northgate and Caboolture, you would probably require 15-18 trains to operate it.  Not sure what the actual numbers are, but I think you get the idea.  No more capacity is provided, but more rolling stock is used.  And you get a less attractive service for passengers.

rather than the randomly alternating 6 and 12 minute gaps in the draft timetable which will result in uneven loadings

This might seem a bit odd, but I think that is deliberate to allow further placement of services in the future without major rewrites.

I am thinking about leaving Brisbane.  Don't like it here at all at present.

[Stillwater]

If, as the government says, it is pushing ahead with the business case and financial analysis for the CRR, it will contain two detailed sections: (1) what happens if we don't proceed with this project and commit to its cost, and (2) an analysis showing other ways to spend the money that otherwise would be allocated to CRR, thereby proving CRR to be the superior solution.  These sections are not commercial-in-confidence and should be released publicly to encourage debate about alternative scenarios.  Of course, the alternatives themselves will cost money that is not budgetted.  This will be a significant restraining factor in looking at options.  Yes, they will be far cheaper, but they will still cost.

[#Metro]

I am thinking about leaving Brisbane.  Don't like it here at all at present.

You are not the only one! Imagine trying to get to work. Screw that, I think I would move too.

[#Metro]

If, as the government says, it is pushing ahead with the business case and financial analysis for the CRR, it will contain two detailed sections: (1) what happens if we don't proceed with this project and commit to its cost, and (2) an analysis showing other ways to spend the money that otherwise would be allocated to CRR, thereby proving CRR to be the superior solution.  These sections are not commercial-in-confidence and should be released publicly to encourage debate about alternative scenarios.  Of course, the alternatives themselves will cost money that is not budgetted.  This will be a significant restraining factor in looking at options.  Yes, they will be far cheaper, but they will still cost.

The benefits are in the order of 35 billion dollars IIRC. So the cost is large, but the benefits are at least 3 times larger than the initial outlay.
There is an alternative that is 50% cheaper than CRR as planned, this is the duplication of the Merivale bridge. The problem here is that there is the busway
in the corridor there, the Brisbane Exhibition and convention centre is in the way as well as an office/residential highrise and or backpackers plus I would think it would also have conflicts of its own with the ipswich line, and it would completely miss woolloongabba. Oh, and something would need to be done about the city tunnels as well.

[#Metro]

As you can see, the alternatives to CRR as pretty poor.

[somebody]

State Government, time to request the BCC to put back proper bus priority on Stagnation Drive and elsewhere.   If they don't want to play, legislate or do what is needed.  The public will back you, particularly when they see the changes happening, faster bus commutes, less road traffic, dare I say it a WIN WIN!

It was mentioned on this forum (I think) that the Act previously had some provision for BCC needing to seek approval to remove a bus lane in certain cases.  Post Coro, they changed so that they need to seek approval in all cases.  They could seek a court injunction that approval was needed to remove the bus lane.

However, I think this would be very unpopular with the electorate.

[Stillwater]

To save money and redirect funds to augmentation of the existing network in lieu of CRR being postponed, perhaps the government should consider not proceeding with purchase of a Tilt Train replacement for the Sunlander.  Any decision would need to weigh up the additional cost of maintaining the current Sunlander rolling stock, and whether a newer, faster, tilt Sunlander would prove a boost to the tourism industry, itself hard-hit in the aftermath of the flooding.  Will the passenger subsidy applying to travellers on the existing Sunlander be any less than for a Tilt Train version or will the extra patronage a tilt Sunlander may attract reduce operating costs?

Also, one of the justifications for the CRR was that extra city railway stations would relieve pressure on Central station.  That pressure will now occur.  The above-track concourse at Central station becomes very busy and crowded at peak hour.  The government may have to look to cancelling some of the commercial leases they have there (coffee shops and the like) so that more floorspace is opened up for the extra foot traffic between now and 2020.

[STB]

Now we have severe budget problems from the floods, and the movement of CRR forward by two years, it comes down now to moving the PT system with as minimal cost as possible.  TL sort of has been in this situation for a while now, moreso in the last week or so since the floods.

My suggestions as follows:

- If the GC line remains at a 15min frequency (and I don't think it can actually be boosted any higher than that frequency anyway), then I don't see too much of a problem of using Tennyson to divert some services off the Merivale Bridge.  There are some fairly major downsides though.  One of them is that it only really frees up a few slots, and the usefulness of those slots depend heavily on both the Cleveland and Beenleigh lines separately to take up more services to use those freed up slots on the bridge.  Other factors is potential conflicts on the Ipswich line, and loss of slots on the Ipswich line.

- Another possible thing that could be done rail wise is to run a circular loop from Bowen Hills over the bridge and to Yeerongpilly, Tennyson, Sherwood, then all stations back to Bowen Hills.  The loop could operate depending on peak, if it's an morning peak, you run the service over the Merivale Bridge first, if you run it's in the afternoon peak, you run it via Milton first.  That ensures that critical slots are available while providing some extra seats for those willing enough to travel the long way to get back.

- A possiblity also is to run Gold Coast trains express from Beenleigh to Kuraby then stop all stations to Moorooka, then via Tennyson express to Roma St.  Allows a boost of capacity on the Beenleigh line from Kuraby onwards to Moorooka.  In doing that you'd be best to reduce the expresses on the Beenleigh line from it's current express pattern to express from Yeerongpilly to Park Rd.

- Upgrading every service run by a 3 car set currently, to a 6 car set, even on weekends.

- Maintenance programs run by operators would need to be reviewed bus/rail, particulary rail to ensure the above set upgrades could occur while ensuring reliabilty of the trains

In terms of buses, I think upgrading routes will become more difficult under the financial circumstances, upgrading a bus route to a higher frequency is actually a lot more expensive then one might think.  So here's what I think should probably happen.

- Upgrade services that are already running at a high frequency but aren't quite a BUZ route yet.  Eg: Route 555.

- Upgrade any short haul services that service high density areas to at least a 15min frequency, this is much cheaper and more effective than upgrading a route like route 250.

- Unless it's been done now, dedicate high capacity buses to high capacity routes full time, eg: every 111 should be a bendy bus, full time where possible.

- If the busways cannot be funded, then bus lane and T2 lanes are a short term quick fix, they aren't ideal but can be done in certain places, ie: not every road can be a bus lane, there is restrictions on it.  Coronation Drive is one of them, but since that road is under BCC control, TL and/or the State cannot enforce a T2 lane to be created along that road, that's up to the BCC, and as we all know there's a long history of disagreement between TL and BCC regarding Coronation Drive, including very effective lobbying by the RACQ.

- Possibly hook up some other routes via the Clem 7 and join other high frequency routes to other high frequency routes to free up capacity in the city and the busways.  The downside is there can then be reliability problems, but I think people will just have to suck it up regardless over the next decade until finances allow the building of the infrastructure, and that applies to both bus and rail.

- Another way to tackle kerbside space issues is to have bus routes use streets on the fringe parts of the city. eg: Alice St.  Or even, spread out high frequency routes across the city instead of all in one area, eg: King George Square busway station. Downside to that is a longer walk distance and the services aren't as visbile to infrequent PT users.

- Boosting short haul services and crosstown services to regional employment centres, eg: Tingalpa/Hemmant from areas where people travel from to get to work.  See if employers can provide Planners with the postcodes of where their employees travel from and use that data to best key new routes that can operate at least in peak hours at the very minimum.

- Boosting route 598/599 on key areas of the route, not the whole route, would cost as much as BUZing route 250 to do that and you're looking at $m+ to do it!  So selecting highly used sections of the route and boosting those sections would be far more effective.

- Instead of BUZing a route outright, do what has been done for route 555 and doing progressive upgrades of the route over a number of years.  Key routes I would suggest would be routes 100, 120, 180, 220, 227, 230, 235, 270 and other routes that service a train station catchment so there is alternative travel if one finds it difficult to board the train station due to heavy loading.

- Converting selected peak hour express routes to all stoppers.

- Reviewing existing timetables and driver rosters, and starting services where possible from the depot itself to minimize as much dead running as possible.

I'm sure there's possibly more ways and I'll continue to think about it.

[somebody]

4.  A rethink on the 'one seat mantra'.  Frequency on trunk routes, bus and rail needs to be fed properly.   I am past possible inconvenience for some of changing seats, providing the frequency is there I don't think it is going to be a longer term issue.  Far better to have widespread reasonably frequent feeders into high frequency core routes for maximum uptake.

I don't know why you keep flogging this dead horse.  The people don't want it.  And what's it got to do with CRR?  Without CRR, the exact opposite is true, as there may be a need for more buses to run all the way to the CBD for capacity reasons in peak hour, especially to supplement the Cleveland line.

One problem is that it utilises the rolling stock less efficiently, i.e. you need a bigger fleet to service the same patronage.  Another is that it doesn't allow for patronage beyond Manly well unless you do some weird timetabling.  If trains come at even intervals to/from M

Or if you put on- dare I say it- rail shuttle to and from Manly.
WOW! People are going to hate that!  

Not only that, it also does nothing about the need for weird timetabling, adds to costs and subtracts from benefits.  And there is not enough platforms at Many to support it.  

Were you joking?

[ozbob]

Were are all entitled to our opinions.  Is not a dead horse and I have no doubt now that there will be  increasing transfers as part of a journey.  It is going to be needed to give high capacity even on busways.  It is bizarre to expect every side bus route to be running through. Time to feed the rail and bus trunk routes properly.  Whether you agree or not it is obviously going to occur as it will be needed to overcome the capacity limitations on the radial bus system particularly.

People will adapt if the payoff is a faster journey overall, and more options to use public transport and get off the roads.

This is of interest --> http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

Most transit networks start out as Direct Service networks with relatively little focus on connections, but as the city grows bigger and more complex, connections become more important.  In most cases, though, there's a transition from a Direct Service network to a Connective one, a transition that often requires severing direct links that people are used to in order to create a connection-based structure of frequent service that is more broadly useful and legible. 

Helping agencies through this hard step is one of my specialties as a consultant, and while there's usually a moment in the process where the resistance seems overwhelming, the agencies I've worked with are almost all glad that they broke through this resistance, because the result was a network that was much more frequent, and therefore more relevant to the life of the city.