CBD Stops

[SurfRail]

http://www.sydneybuses.info/network-interchange-maps/A4P_DeparturesGuide_LR.pdf

Looking at the above from Sydney is enlightening.  Even though this is only for the STA buses, it is very clear and legible as to where things leave from and where they go.

This would be impossible to do in Brisbane because the current network makes it too difficult to map legibly.  (There is also an Adelaide one which is a lot more difficult to follow, and their network is still less complicated in the CBD.)

I don't think there is an actual thread dealing with CBD stop placements generally, so how about people deposit their thoughts here?

[somebody]

Another point I would make from that is that the private operators will use stops on the same street as the STA if they are travelling to the same corridor.  This is completely opposite to what happens here.

I've been meaning to post the stop list found in QSBS B, which is linked here and here.  It has the following errors:
156 no longer leaves from stop A8
157 is not listed (A8)
119 no longer leaves from stop A4
179 no longer leaves from stop C1
431+436+446 do not serve Indooroopilly
425+430+435+450+453+454+460 do not serve Milton any more.
425+426 do not serve Mt Coot Tha
215 serves Murrarie but 220 doesn't??
426+425 do not serve Spring Hill
several routes serving Buranda are listed as serving Woolloongabba - this was duplicated at the Cultural Centre.

With the extreme amount of time that these errors have remained, I can only assume that most people don't find it very useful to have a list which shows which QSBS routes go from where to where.  What about the other routes?

[dwb]

Buranda is a locality, Woolloongabba is the suburb. So any route servicing Buranda busway station is in fact servicing the suburb of Woolloongabba.

I would imagine it is the same issue with Mt Coottha.

I would imagine it is done automatically as to whether or not the route bisects the shape of the suburb boundary and is output that way.

I'm not arguing that it is a good way to do things, but I don't think it is strictly "wrong" per se.

[Gazza]

Agreed, any chance of just getting a map of the Brisbane CBD and drawing up firstly where stops can be located, and secondly how they should be arranged. It's very difficult to gain the full vision of how it should be set up by piecing together tens of media releases.

[dwb]

Agreed, any chance of just getting a map of the Brisbane CBD and drawing up firstly where stops can be located, and secondly how they should be arranged. It's very difficult to gain the full vision of how it should be set up by piecing together tens of media releases.

You know Translink has a newsletter? This quarter's service updates are all quite concisely listed... http://www.vision6.com.au/em/message/email/view.php?id=842903&u=42663

But yes, mapping mapping mapping, it is so important and Translink have little idea.

[somebody]

I would imagine it is the same issue with Mt Coottha.

I'd imagine that because Chapel Hill Rd is within about 1km of Mt Coot-tha it is deemed to serve it.

Re: W'Gabba, this needs to be explained MUCH better.  Although I don't doubt what you are saying.  As far as I am concerned it is a mistake because it is likely to confuse passengers.


-
So are we saying we are going to keep the baffling way the services are arranged and attempt to explain it, or are we actually going to rationalise it?

[AnonymouslyBad]

So are we saying we are going to keep the baffling way the services are arranged and attempt to explain it, or are we actually going to rationalise it?

I would say rationalise it. Though that comes with the disclaimer that Brisbane's CBD stops will always be a bit messy no matter what you do, because we have a mix of separated busway, bus lanes and general road space - and we need to use all of them. Having all westside routes, for example, stopping in exactly the same place would be nice, but that will NEVER happen in Brisbane with the current infrastructure. It's not like Sydney where everything is street stops and so you can just organise it one way and be done with it.

I would argue that, since the busway and Adelaide St aren't going anywhere, we should be rationalising the street stops into one or two more legible "corridors". (City Precincts, and/or a new City South maybe resembling the 555 or Eagle St rocket route.) It'd be nice if they busway-ify the stops too so that there's a handful of longer, readily identifiable stops rather than dots everywhere. But in any case, all routes in and out of the city should have an easily identifiable path through the CBD. That way even when it does get messy, the mess can be labelled and made more legible.

I do think in any case, there should be a proper map. There is definitely an order to how it's organised now, the problem is that it's often indecipherable and/or inconvenient which needs to be fixed. But order is there, and a map would help. There's maps for QSBS/KGSBS and Adelaide St which clearly show the relationships between stops, you could probably do the same for rockets to Eagle St etc. but you'd end up with a hell of a lot of maps. So I don't see why it shouldn't just be published as one big map ...even if it requires a pretty big bit of paper to fit all that info.

[somebody]

Disagree with almost every word there, AnonymouslyBad

Firstly, having basically all the western bus routes in one place has already been achieved during the KGSBS construction. (Except for 433/445 all stoppers and routes not through Indooroopilly school).  The additional routes could easily have been added.

Secondly, there will never be common corridor for a busway spine.  That idea is what has brought the Ottawa Transitway undone.  Why oh why would it replicated here?  I think it is laughable, but Translink think that way.

EDIT: pedantry

[AnonymouslyBad]

Secondly, there will never be common corridor for a busway spine.  That idea is what has brought the Ottawa Transitway undone.  Why oh why would it replicated here?  I think it is laughable, but Translink think that way.

Not sure what you're saying here? We have an actual busway in the city, and one spine at the fringes of it. One busway goes into one busway quite easily, the whole idea is that it creates one continuous spine which it does. A large part of the problem here is that the opening of the busway called for a major overhaul of stops, but it didn't - they made the minimum changes possible and the rest went in the too hard basket - and so we have an even bigger mess than we started with.
That's not actually what my post said though, so I may be missing your point entirely.

[somebody]

What I am trying to say is that there is no that all SE Busway routes could be confined to a single spine in the CBD, at least without spending a gazillion dollars. Why try to achieve it when it is unachievable?  111 & 222 in KGSBS make little sense IMO.

[#Metro]

Not sure what you're saying here? We have an actual busway in the city, and one spine at the fringes of it.

I agree- what are all the buses popping out of QSBS-KGS? That's a busway...

One busway goes into one busway quite easily, the whole idea is that it creates one continuous spine which it does. A large part of the problem here is that the opening of the busway called for a major overhaul of stops, but it didn't - they made the minimum changes possible and the rest went in the too hard basket - and so we have an even bigger mess than we started with.
That's not actually what my post said though, so I may be missing your point entirely.

Unfortunately when it comes to the CBD, there are buses everywhere- Adelaide, Elizabeth, Queen Street, Alice Street. A North-South Subway would mop the majority of these buses and consolidate them into a single line through the CBD.

[dwb]

I agree- what are all the buses popping out of QSBS-KGS? That's a busway...

You hit the nail on the head tramtrain, the buses pop OUT OF the busway... and that is a significant part of the problem!

[somebody]

I agree- what are all the buses popping out of QSBS-KGS? That's a busway...

You hit the nail on the head tramtrain, the buses pop OUT OF the busway... and that is a significant part of the problem!

100% disagree.

[dwb]

I agree- what are all the buses popping out of QSBS-KGS? That's a busway...

You hit the nail on the head tramtrain, the buses pop OUT OF the busway... and that is a significant part of the problem!

100% disagree.

Would you elaborate to me then what you perceive the problem to be?

[cartoonbirdhaus]

The buses pop OUT OF the busway... and that is a significant part of the problem!

I wouldn't say pop out so much as trickle—two buses on average, every minute-and-a-quarter, out of the William St portal.

[AnonymouslyBad]

The buses pop OUT OF the busway... and that is a significant part of the problem!

I wouldn't say pop out so much as trickle—two buses every minute-and-a-quarter out of the William St portal.

Well, they have to make sure there's room for all those buses making for the South East Busway from Adelaide St, and William St, probably among others...

[somebody]

I agree- what are all the buses popping out of QSBS-KGS? That's a busway...

You hit the nail on the head tramtrain, the buses pop OUT OF the busway... and that is a significant part of the problem!

100% disagree.

Would you elaborate to me then what you perceive the problem to be?

I'm saying that there isn't a problem with the infrastructure, just the use of it.

[dwb]

I'm saying that there isn't a problem with the infrastructure, just the use of it.

I agree operational issues are a big problem, but I think no matter how you look at it, the complexity of modes that interact will always be an issue here without an infrastructure solution, even if you only had 10 different routes, you'd still have conflicts with pedestrians and cars at both ends of Victoria Bridge and even if you took cars off Victoria Bridge (which would simplify things a great deal), you'd still have issues. And it would be "unpopular" with the community as it would be seen to be funnelling to Go Between Bridge.

[somebody]

I'm saying that there isn't a problem with the infrastructure, just the use of it.

I agree operational issues are a big problem, but I think no matter how you look at it, the complexity of modes that interact will always be an issue here without an infrastructure solution, even if you only had 10 different routes, you'd still have conflicts with pedestrians and cars at both ends of Victoria Bridge and even if you took cars off Victoria Bridge (which would simplify things a great deal), you'd still have issues. And it would be "unpopular" with the community as it would be seen to be funnelling to Go Between Bridge.

Sigh.

[dwb]

Sigh.

Well that is just rude.

The ramp out of the QSBS is an infrastructure problem as is the intersection at the end of Cultural Centre and I'm far from being the only person who thinks so.

[SurfRail]

How about possible solutions?  Assume the busway is not going anywhere and no additional "hard" busway capacity will be added in the inner city (ie the current scenario), which may last indefinitely.

For instance:

- Rationalising stop numbers on Adelaide Street
- QSBS is no longer a station for express services only - used only for south-side routes (not eastern or western suburbs)
- All Valley terminating services originate from the same area
- All western and some northern suburbs routes enter the city via Roma Street busway
- Limited number of route variations for peak hour services
- Merge some rockets with express or BUZ services and run via the CCB full time

I think TransLink has dropped the ball significantly on legibility, and simply putting a map up is not going to fix that (especially if it is as confusing and context-free as their current offerings).  Massive simplification of where buses go in the CBD is in order so you can intuit where you need to be.

[somebody]

- QSBS is no longer a station for express services only
- Limited number of route variations for peak hour services
- Merge some rockets with express or BUZ services and run via the CCB full time

I think TransLink has dropped the ball significantly on legibility, and simply putting a map up is not going to fix that (especially if it is as confusing and context-free as their current offerings).  Massive simplification of where buses go in the CBD is in order so you can intuit where you need to be.

Fully agree with these points.  Thanks for the support.

- used only for south-side routes (not eastern or western suburbs)
- All Valley terminating services originate from the same area
- All western and some northern suburbs routes enter the city via Roma Street busway

Not so sure on these ones.

I don't see a huge issue with Western Routes in QSBS B.  Perhaps a better solution could be found though.  If that's the solution it should include the 444 of course.  On paper if south side routes used QSBS exclusively that would be a plus, but I don't think it is large enough to contain them all.  Happy to be proven wrong.

Does Warner St or Ballow St have enough capacity to fully replace the other?

Disagree with western routes entering via Roma St busway.  There isn't the capacity to have all the western routes in KGSBS combined with the ones already there and allow in the 35x, 390, part 375, 379-81, and you could argue 372/3/7/8.

[HappyTrainGuy]

That would make sense. King George serves the North. Queen Street serves the South. Surface handles (Adelaide-Elizabeth Streets) a mix for the East/West and inbetween.

[somebody]

Let's get rid of Ann St to the South and East as well, including the 250 and 270.

[dwb]

How about possible solutions?  Assume the busway is not going anywhere and no additional "hard" busway capacity will be added in the inner city (ie the current scenario), which may last indefinitely.

Conceptually that might be useful (to force one to get more from what we've got), but I almost guarantee they will add some form of "hard" bus capacity added to the city before CRR opens, it might be the last, but I'm almost sure it will happen. I don't think we should assume that nothing will be provided indefinitely.

[AnonymouslyBad]

That would make sense. King George serves the North. Queen Street serves the South. Surface handles (Adelaide-Elizabeth Streets) a mix for the East/West and inbetween.

This sounds about right. Though the design of the busway creates some issues: KGSBS is primarily a through-running station, whereas QSBS is primarily a terminus. That's by design, as far as I can tell, and doing it any other way is rather inefficient. So I would think a system like the following:
- southside services coming in from South Bank should use KGSBS (and continue to Roma St). Otherwise, terminate at QSBS.
- northside services coming in from RBWH should use KGSBS (and continue to Cultural Centre). Otherwise, terminate at QSBS, capacity permitting.
I know this is not quite as legible as having a clear north/south divide, and is kind of just an improved version of what's in place now, but at least it creates logical groupings for the inner ring (e.g. you know where to go for all buses to South Bank). I don't see any other way to do it with what we've got; you can't just turn around as many buses as you like at KGSBS, for example. The provision to do it is there, but the capacity is limited.

(Edit: I could be being too optimistic about the overall underground capacity here, because there's a lot of southside routes. If this is the case, not much you can do to stop it getting messy. I would say move CCB services out to the street and keep them together so it's at least somewhat legible.)

For east and west services:
- they should run on Adelaide St where possible (is it possible to fit them all down there?).
- interchange at King George Square for busway and Central for rail.
- consistent approach to through running: unless capacity permits at CC (it won't) or the Valley, city services will probably need to terminate in the city.
- Adelaide St should have a major stop consolidation so that, for example, "Central Station" doesn't actually mean 4 or 5 different stops.
- if there's not enough capacity on Adelaide St, then it might have to be a joint effort with (an improved) Elizabeth St, I'd hope this isn't needed though.

Rockets unfortunately will probably still have to vary from the above, unless you want to waste a lot of stop capacity during the off-peak. They should be made more legible, though. Not sure if this means co-locating them as close as possible to the "main" services or focusing more on giving all rockets a common, identifiable route. I think there should be less rockets anyway, with the extra frequency put onto the normal routes.

[dwb]

That would make sense. King George serves the North. Queen Street serves the South. Surface handles (Adelaide-Elizabeth Streets) a mix for the East/West and inbetween.

This sounds about right. Though the design of the busway creates some issues: KGSBS is primarily a through-running station, whereas QSBS is primarily a terminus. That's by design, as far as I can tell, and doing it any other way is rather inefficient. So I would think a system like the following:
- southside services coming in from South Bank should use KGSBS (and continue to Roma St). Otherwise, terminate at QSBS.
- northside services coming in from RBWH should use KGSBS (and continue to Cultural Centre). Otherwise, terminate at QSBS, capacity permitting.
I know this is not quite as legible as having a clear north/south divide, and is kind of just an improved version of what's in place now, but at least it creates logical groupings for the inner ring (e.g. you know where to go for all buses to South Bank). I don't see any other way to do it with what we've got; you can't just turn around as many buses as you like at KGSBS, for example. The provision to do it is there, but the capacity is limited.

For east and west services:
- they should run on Adelaide St where possible (is it possible to fit them all down there?).
- interchange at King George Square for busway and Central for rail.
- consistent approach to through running: unless capacity permits at CC (it won't) or the Valley, city services will probably need to terminate in the city.
- Adelaide St should have a major stop consolidation so that, for example, "Central Station" doesn't actually mean 4 or 5 different stops.
- if there's not enough capacity on Adelaide St, then it might have to be a joint effort with (an improved) Elizabeth St, I'd hope this isn't needed though.

Rockets unfortunately will probably still have to vary from the above, unless you want to waste a lot of stop capacity during the off-peak. They should be made more legible, though. Not sure if this means co-locating them as close as possible to the "main" services or focusing more on giving all rockets a common, identifiable route. I think there should be less rockets anyway, with the extra frequency put onto the normal routes.

I don't like idea of a north south divide, I don't see why if I live on the north and I want to access the inner south (or vice versa) I should have to change service. Why can't services run through, at least to the edge of the inner city on the other side?

[Golliwog]

Something to keep in mind as well is that should any modifications be done to the Hungry Jacks building, or the other on the opposite side of the Queen St Mall, Translink/TMR needs to get involved. If they're doing anything with the footings of those buildings then it could be possible to fix up the snake/change the lights so it could be possible to have buses heading north and south through the traffic lights in there at the same time.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Which is why the 333 should be combined with the 111 to operate a North-South busway route once the Northern section is finished to Chermside then combined with its extension to Carseldine if its able to. Although its not that hard to catch a northern bus, get off at CCBS and then get on another bus minutes later. Maybe there should be a busway Buz. Chermside all stops to King George square to Queen Street all stops to 8 Mile Plains? 

[dwb]

Which is why the 333 should be combined with the 111 to operate a North-South busway route once the Northern section is finished to Chermside then combined with its extension to Carseldine if its able to. Although its not that hard to catch a northern bus, get off at CCBS and then get on another bus minutes later. Maybe there should be a busway Buz. Chermside all stops to King George square to Queen Street all stops to 8 Mile Plains? 

Although I believe in transfering, I don't think we should force needless transfers. Part of the reason why CCBS is such a mess is a bunch of transfers happen there, meaning buses take longer to go through bc of needless transfers, for example The Gap BUZ passengers going to the Gap could easily transfer at Woolloongabba to 29, rather than in the city to 109. It would be more efficient all around.

[somebody]

That would make sense. King George serves the North. Queen Street serves the South. Surface handles (Adelaide-Elizabeth Streets) a mix for the East/West and inbetween.

This sounds about right. Though the design of the busway creates some issues: KGSBS is primarily a through-running station, whereas QSBS is primarily a terminus. That's by design, as far as I can tell, and doing it any other way is rather inefficient. So I would think a system like the following:
- southside services coming in from South Bank should use KGSBS (and continue to Roma St). Otherwise, terminate at QSBS.
- northside services coming in from RBWH should use KGSBS (and continue to Cultural Centre). Otherwise, terminate at QSBS, capacity permitting.
I know this is not quite as legible as having a clear north/south divide, and is kind of just an improved version of what's in place now, but at least it creates logical groupings for the inner ring (e.g. you know where to go for all buses to South Bank). I don't see any other way to do it with what we've got; you can't just turn around as many buses as you like at KGSBS, for example. The provision to do it is there, but the capacity is limited.

I find these to be extraordinary comments.  Terminating at QSBS from the north, which can only be done at C and A5-A10?  Why?  Using platform A for north bound routes reduces legibility significantly, and is the exact opposite of rationalising the routes as SurfRail was suggesting.  Platform C isn't so bad but you are still removing the opportunity to transfer at the Cultural Centre, where basically all south side routes run through.

Cultural Centre is good enough as a terminus IMO.

For east and west services:
- they should run on Adelaide St where possible (is it possible to fit them all down there?).
- interchange at King George Square for busway and Central for rail.
- consistent approach to through running: unless capacity permits at CC (it won't) or the Valley, city services will probably need to terminate in the city.
- Adelaide St should have a major stop consolidation so that, for example, "Central Station" doesn't actually mean 4 or 5 different stops.
- if there's not enough capacity on Adelaide St, then it might have to be a joint effort with (an improved) Elizabeth St, I'd hope this isn't needed though.

Rockets unfortunately will probably still have to vary from the above, unless you want to waste a lot of stop capacity during the off-peak. They should be made more legible, though. Not sure if this means co-locating them as close as possible to the "main" services or focusing more on giving all rockets a common, identifiable route. I think there should be less rockets anyway, with the extra frequency put onto the normal routes.

I think the Toombul routes (many 300-322) should continue to run O/B on Adelaide St.  I could accept I/B on Ann St, and turn around either at North Quay island or Adelaide St stop 16.  That does have a couple of limitations, such as if I want to transfer to/from one of these routes to a QSBS route, or worse, an Alice St route.

I'd also like to get rid of Edward St termination.  310, 315, 227, 232 should all run O/B on Adelaide St.  I'm sure I'm missing a bunch there.

I don't like idea of a north south divide, I don't see why if I live on the north and I want to access the inner south (or vice versa) I should have to change service. Why can't services run through, at least to the edge of the inner city on the other side?

I would refer to this article: http://www.humantransit.org/2009/08/why-isnt-throughrouting-more-common.html

Particularly with your suggestion to run through to W'Gabba, that would involve doubling back to the bus parking area near there, but more importantly it would be more expensive to operate than the Hope St turnaround.  The other limitation is that it would increase bus numbers through the busiest part of the busway, although perhaps it would cope.  I'm comfortable with the way things are in this regard.

Although I believe in transfering, I don't think we should force needless transfers. Part of the reason why CCBS is such a mess is a bunch of transfers happen there,

That's because people can't intuit where to find the bus to their destination.

[dwb]

I don't like idea of a north south divide, I don't see why if I live on the north and I want to access the inner south (or vice versa) I should have to change service. Why can't services run through, at least to the edge of the inner city on the other side?

I would refer to this article: http://www.humantransit.org/2009/08/why-isnt-throughrouting-more-common.html

Particularly with your suggestion to run through to W'Gabba, that would involve doubling back to the bus parking area near there, but more importantly it would be more expensive to operate than the Hope St turnaround.  The other limitation is that it would increase bus numbers through the busiest part of the busway, although perhaps it would cope.  I'm comfortable with the way things are in this regard.

Although I believe in transfering, I don't think we should force needless transfers. Part of the reason why CCBS is such a mess is a bunch of transfers happen there,

That's because people can't intuit where to find the bus to their destination.

Thanks for the article Simon, I'll give it a read.

With respect to people being unable to intuit where to find a bus, that is very true, but I simply meant the quantum of transfers that are forced particularly at Cultural Centre (BUZ to BUZ for crosstown travel) causes a great deal of platform busy-ness and additional boarding/deboardings that shouldn't have to occur at that station as many are only travelling just to the other side of town.

[dwb]

I think the reason I'm so interested in the through running idea is in part at least due to my time in Rio.

They have a metro 'system' in Rio. It is composed of two lines. The north line and the south line.

Originally all north line trains terminated at Estacio which is on the northern edge of the CBD. All northern passengers then had to transfer to a south line train to go to any other station in the city. This caused huge issues with unneccessary transfers at Estacio. It also meant that south line passengers could only go as far north as Estacio without changing lines (altho the south line does continue west from Estacio).

I think about 18months ago, they built a new piece of infrastructure to enable them to overlap the north and south lines on a core segment of the network.

This allows transfers between the two lines to be split over several stations. As north line trains terminate at Botafogo (in the south), most south line passengers who want to travel further north than Central, transfer at Botafogo as they can board an empty train. However as the north line doesn't terminate at Central (the furtherest north common station and instead continues west) the incentive for passengers to transfer at Central is not as strong as at Botafogo.

This also means that passengers on either a north line or south line train whose destination is one of the common central stations, DO NOT HAVE TO TRANSFER AT ALL. This is a HUGE number of passengers.

To enable this, Metro Rio had to build a new connector between the lines, and they also built a major new station for the north line in proximity but not connected to the original terminating station (Estacio, which is now solely served by the south line). Presumably it also required major new power infrastructure as the frequency on the central component of the network effectively doubled (ie through combining north and south line trains - although I'm not sure if the two lines run 1 for 1).

That description is a bit awkward, but perhaps these pictures will help....

Current network map.


Clearly showing which stations are served by both lines.


The dashed line is the old alignment of the north line that used to terminate at Estacio (which it now does not service, instead servicing the new Cidade Nova before joining the common segment from Central to Botafogo).

What I'm thinking, is that a large part of the capacity constraint of CCBS is the number of transfers which slow buses down and hence limit the capacity rather than buses/passengers themselves.  And I think these could really occur elsewhere...

[dwb]

If this helps?

S> station, T>line terminus, C>common station

Prior situation... only one common station, huge transfer numbers (the current cultural centre busway station?)

<-------S----S-----T
                       -C----S-----S-----S------S------------------>
                      |
                      |
                      |
                      S
                      |


Current infrastructure and operating pattern, multiple common stations, spread transfers, eliminated transfers.

<-------S----S----------C-----C-----C-----C.T
                       S----C-----C-----C------C-------S-----S--->
                      |
                      |
                      |
                      S
                      |

[somebody]

Sounds like the previous arrangements in Rio were a bit like terminating Gold Coast trains at South Brisbane.

[AnonymouslyBad]

I find these to be extraordinary comments.  Terminating at QSBS from the north, which can only be done at C and A5-A10?  Why?  Using platform A for north bound routes reduces legibility significantly, and is the exact opposite of rationalising the routes as SurfRail was suggesting.  Platform C isn't so bad but you are still removing the opportunity to transfer at the Cultural Centre, where basically all south side routes run through.

Cultural Centre is good enough as a terminus IMO.

You've got a point, and I can't think what services should actually use QSBS - I put it in there thinking about capacity constraints. Busway services (i.e. from beyond Roma Street) should continue to run through to Cultural Centre. I was thinking more for services from Milton, etc. - which for consistency's sake should all be off the busway (as you've noted, they wouldn't all fit, among other issues). But really all those routes should be on Adelaide St if there's the capacity for it.

With respect to people being unable to intuit where to find a bus, that is very true, but I simply meant the quantum of transfers that are forced particularly at Cultural Centre (BUZ to BUZ for crosstown travel) causes a great deal of platform busy-ness and additional boarding/deboardings that shouldn't have to occur at that station as many are only travelling just to the other side of town.

Yeah. Having every major route meet at Cultural Centre made sense once, when it was the only busway station near the city and had the capacity to handle it. Neither of these are the case anymore. The different segments of the network do need to meet up, somewhere, but it need not all be the same place. (Case in point: Adelaide St services can connect with KGSBS just fine. Running them to CC purely for the sake of busway connection no longer makes sense.)
I don't think running every service to the Gabba or RBWH is practical. But continuing through to Roma Street or Cultural Centre respectively makes sense for services on that corridor. I don't think through running is as practical for Adelaide St, at least not consistently enough to fix legibility, but as long as they connect with both KGSBS and Central I don't see a problem.

[Gazza]

Here's my approach to solving this problem.
Evidently, trying to use a broad brush approach of "Every route from the North goes here and every route from the west goes here etc etc" probably wont work, since there isn't enough capacity in any one location is there?

Step 1: Make a list of all corridors which share services that can combine to provide a good frequency...I'm not sure how many there would be all together....20....30? With respect to busway services, you might have to sub group based on the branching point (Eg Garden City, Griffith), because I'm not sure if one particular spot could hold all SEB services.

Step 2: Make a list of all stopping locations in the CBD.

Step 3: Distribute

Also, I just wanted to say that I agree with the 111 & 333 being combined, bumped up to perhaps a 10 minute frequency with headway maintenance.

As far as I'm concerned there should be a 'light rail' route on the Busway that doesn't require interchange in the CBD....I wonder too if there are efficiencies that come about by not having two routes 'terminating' in the CBD with subsequent associated layover times.

[somebody]

You've got a point,

Thank you.

Here's my approach to solving this problem.
Evidently, trying to use a broad brush approach of "Every route from the North goes here and every route from the west goes here etc etc" probably wont work, since there isn't enough capacity in any one location is there?

It is not evident to me.

[dwb]

I'm wondering if we should take a bunch of routes out of Cultural Centre and route them via REX and Margaret St offramp (or somewhere else)... don't quite understand the existing preference for Elizabeth St??

Currently 58 routes service Cultural Centre busway station - too many right, confusing for passengers and difficult to manage numbers wise. These 58 routes include:
100  105  107  108  109 110  111  112  113  115 116  117  120  124  125 130  135  140  150  160 170  172  174  175  180 184  185  192  196  199 200  202  203  204  210 212  214  215  220  222 230  235  250  270  300 301  306  322  330  333 340  345  385  444  540 555  66  GLIDER
Interestingly the "stop timetable page on the website doesn't seem to indicate those non-peak services that do use CCB, like 453 for example, so there's likely a bunch more western routes too.

I'd think we'd want to keep it pretty much to BUZ routes, or those that really have a reason to be in there. I'm thinking that would include the following routes (done to about 30/58... so half existing):
100, 109, 110, 111, 115, 120, 130, 135, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 192, 196, 199, 200, 210, 222, 235?, 250, 270, 540, 555, 66, GLIDER
and 345^, 385^, 444^, 333^

^I'd like to see extended through to Woolloongabba or paired with a southside route (the primary reason not be to reinforce one seat journeys, but prevent unnecessary CBD transfers):

So that means I'd remove (from Mater/South Bank/CCB) but not really sure where they'd go:
105/107/108*,
112/113* (114 already via REX),
116 (paired 121 already via REX),
117/124/125 (couldn't these go via Main St, Kangaroo Point to Valley?),
135? (155,134 already via REX),
172 (P173 already via REX),
174/175 (could these be BUZed together? kept in CCB),
184/185 (could they go storey bridge?),
202/203 (P205/P208 go via REX),
204 (keep with 200?),
212 (send/combine with P211 via REX),
214/215/220?
235?... could not the 230/P231 and 235/P236 pairs be simplified... perhaps combine them all into two continuous loops, or at least pair them consistently... ie the P and non P version using the same routes the whole way, not switching mid point, this seems needlessly confusing?

*basket case routes, no?

I'd also just shorten these ones to not use CCB:
300, 301, 306, 322, 330? 340?

But then again really shouldn't a bunch of these routes just be feeder routes to the busway interchanging further out from the city?.... the question remains how do you get people to transfer from one full bus to another full bus (even if the first is a smaller feeder bus and the second is say an articulated BUZ?)

Also wondering if some buses/routes could come inbound via SEB ie mater, south bank BUT then turn left into Grey St before CCB, stop in Grey St instead, continue across Grey St bridge and then Roma St.... or something like that. In reverse you'd have to turn right into Peel St, left to Hope St, but then I'm not sure can buses turn right into SEB portal from there?

Just brainstorming some options to improve reliability on SEB and to simplify Cultural Centre busway station.  Wherever the other routes are put, I'm implying they should also have priority whether it is Storey Bridge, REX or various city streets. pls don't be too harsh but constructive criticism will be very happily received.

[Mr X]

I thought the aim of the busway was for buses to enter the busway, serve the first stop, then run express all the way to the city?
If someone wanted to get to another stop, they'd just hop off and take the next 111/160.
Could that be done now? Permanent bus priority across CCB and all buses use the CCB to the city, except a frequency revamped 111, 222 and 66 which would run via South Bank to the city? They could then connect with the 333 and 444 at Cultural Centre.
Aren't there a lot of 4xx routes that go via the CC too?

To avoid going along Queens Wharf Rd, the lights at William St could be changed to allow the 110/120/130 etc. to turn right into QSBS.

EDIT: Made my post clearer