CBD Stops

[HappyTrainGuy]

It would be good to see some of the northen buz routes extended along the busway just to prevent the terminated ones blocking the exit for the CCBS. It should then be paired with getting rid of that intersection all thogether to enable a more constant flow and extend where the bottleneck starts (instead of busses driving/staying at the platform in the queue waiting for a green light).

[somebody]

Preference for Elizabeth St is that it is much more convenient for nearly all passengers.  The Myer Centre and Wintergarden both have entrances on Elizabeth St, whereas Margaret St has little on it.  It's mostly QUT students that would like Margaret St, but there are of course Parliament & Mineral House workers and a few others down that end of town.

There are too many routes in Brisbane period, not just in the Cultural Centre. 

I'd be keen to see the main Bulimba routes using the Storey Bridge & Ivory St before any other route is taken out of the via South Bank route.

I could write an essay on what your suggesting, but I thought I'd just outline my answer.

It would be good to see some of the northen buz routes extended along the busway just to prevent the terminated ones blocking the exit for the CCBS. It should then be paired with getting rid of that intersection all thogether to enable a more constant flow and extend where the bottleneck starts (instead of busses driving/staying at the platform in the queue waiting for a green light).

Only when they seek to head north on Hope St.  If they head north on Grey St, they don't cause any bottleneck as there is a right turn lane exiting CCBS.

[HappyTrainGuy]

There is an exit but it just takes two busses to make it a very tight squeeze. It also brings forth longer dwell times waiting for the lights to change because of the multiple driving and pedestrian crossings patterns.

[dwb]

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.
Could that be done now? Permanent bus priority across CBB and all buses except a frequency revamped 111, 222 and 66 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?

Not really, given people have different destinations (including Mater, South Brisbane and Cultural Centre), and I wouldn't think going as far as you've suggested would really be that valuable, that is unless you switched to a closed busway system with forced transfers from a main trunk line, much like Curitiba operates. But I don't think that is going to happen in Brisbane, the success of the SEB has been driven in large part by the one seat philosophy, and yes that is what is causing us issues now, but I think we can find a middle ground really. If you halved the number of buses or even kept the same number of buses but on half the routes, I'm sure Cultural Centre, South Bank and Mater would operate much more smoothly than now.

Yes the 4xx routes are the western ones... but generally they already use North Quay during peak, not CC.

[somebody]

I agree with dwb.  If you want to speed up the trip, use the Captain Cook Bridge; don't run express via South Bank.

There is an exit but it just takes two busses to make it a very tight squeeze. It also brings forth longer dwell times waiting for the lights to change because of the multiple driving and pedestrian crossings patterns.

There is the opposing move.  I wonder if this is a reason why the Go Between Bridge is accessed via Melbourne St rather than Peel St or Stanley Pl?

[Mr X]

That's what I was meaning. Running express via South Bank would be ridiculous.

All cityxpress routes (120/130/140 etc.) go via CCB. Access to South Bank via a high frequency 111/66/222. Then we can amalgamate some of these stupid rockets (including the OCR ones) into mainstream routes.

[SurfRail]

Later tonight I am going to have a go at notionally working some of this out in a diagram.

[Mr X]

Would pax going to South Bank/Mater Hill on the 130/140/150, interchanging to the 111 at Griffith University, cause another clog point?

[SurfRail]

I've given the diagram away (I don't have the software or skills, somebody who is bored might be able to draft one).

The intention is to limit the number of CBD bus route variations so you don't have buses trafficking every single street.  Throw in some "super stops" and rationalisation too (eg only 3 stops on Adelaide St between Queen and George Sts and all routes stop at each one).

Here's the guts of my thinking - longish post...

1.   QSBS terminating routes

(a)   From Captain Cook Bridge (A platform)

100; 110; 120; 170; 180
(lengthy on-street running before joining the busway)

135; 155; "150A" (covers 150 from ATO to Stretton)
(residual south-side expresses)

(b)   From Roma Street (B platform)

325; 335; 350; 357; 359
(north-west services – 335 to be routed via INB and Roma St)

(c)   From Cultural Centre (C platform)

172; 174/175; 184/185
(Garden City originators – Holland Park/Wishart axis)

2.   KGS routes

109+66 merger
111+333 merger - via Cultural Ctr
130+330 merger - via Capt Cook
140+340 merger - via Capt Cook
150B (from Gowan Rd to Browns Plains) + 345 merger - via Capt Cook
222 to RBWH - via Cultural Ctr
250 to Roma Street (maybe QUT) - via Capt Cook
385 to GOMA
444 to GOMA
555 to Roma Street (maybe QUT) - via Capt Cook

3.   City Gardens routes (includes 391 somewhere)

(a)   From Cultural Centre (Elizabeth/Edward/Alice/William)

107 (fulltime); 108 (fulltime); 112; 113; 116; 117; 124; 125

(b)   From Spring Hill (Central/Edward/Alice/Elizabeth/Creek)   

Spring Hill Loop; 321; 334; 346; 353; 372; 373; 377; 378
(realign several services away from Valley to better serve Spring Hill and Gregory Tce)

(c)   From Kangaroo Point (Eagle/Edward/Alice/William/Elizabeth

215; 220; 230; 235

4.   Adelaide St routes

(a)   From Valley (G = terminate at Gabba; C = terminate at City Hall; O = other)

G = 300; 306; 322
C = 301; 310; 315; 320 (St Pauls Tce routes)
O = 380/381 (extend from CBD to Hamilton, give new route nos)

(b)   To Valley from Cultural Centre (except 200)

200 (via Chatsworth Rd and Capt Cook); 203; 204; 210; 212; 214; 227; 232
(Some Wynnum Rd services here to maintain connectivity between that corridor and Gabba/Mater area)

(c)   Inner-city

CityGlider; 192; 195; 196; 199

5.   Ann/Elizabeth St routes

360; 361; 370; 374; 375; 379 (connect the Grange end to the Toowong end of the 470, scrap the other parts of both routes); 411; 412; 415; 417; 433 (separate from west of Indooroopilly); 475

6.   Peak hour only services (each group follows a common route and stops). Generally only provided for longer range routes with lengthy express running.  Should have similar sounding route numbers (as a suggestion, use '8' as a suffix where feasible).

(a)   Captain Cook Bridge – Parliament – Riverside

118; 121 (renumber 128); 133 (renumber 138); 137; 142 (renumber 148); 186 (renumber 188); 201 (renumber 208 and send to Scrub Rd); 211 (renumber 218)

(b)   Captain Cook Bridge – Elizabeth/Creek/Ann

All Veolia/LCBS/PRT peak services (somebody may have a better view, I think operationally it is good to keep them together as they are all going into the distant south or east).

(c)   Spring Hill – Riverside – Parliament

331 (renumber 338); 332 (renumber 337); 341 (renumber 348); 384 (renumber 388)

(d)   Roma Street – William Street – Parliament – Riverside

343 (renumber 348); 363 (renumber 368); 376; 382; 383

7.   Any route number not specifically dealt with above has either been:

(a)   Decommissioned due to:

(i)   being amalgamated with adjacent full-service route(s) (eg 179 and 181 packed into the 180);

(ii)   low utility (eg 114, 436);

(iii)   being fed into rail (eg virtually all western suburbs would feed into Toowong, Indooroopilly, Darra or Richlands except for the 412, 444 and some of the all-stoppers) or frequent buses further out (eg 540) or merged with local routes (eg 183 merged into 177); or

(b)   Missed inadvertently.

[O_128]

One issue I have is that the 130,150 are to long to be reliable enough for through running and 150a/150b need to leave from same stop. Other than that great job in cleaning up the current cluster......... of bus routes


And I 100% agree with western suburbs feeders.

[Gazza]

^To be honest, I reckon all of the major shopping centre Interchanges (Carindale, Hyperdome, Brookside (Though ones feeding there should continue the short distance to the Ferny Grove line), Garden City, Chermside) are all adequate nodes to implement feeders too. Particularly with Indro, Garden City and Carindale you have 7.5 min frequency, so no real penalty for interchange these days)

[Mr X]

Love it, surf rail! 

One comment, if the 130 and 150 are unreliable with "bunching" up of services, it might affect reliability on their northside counterparts?

[HappyTrainGuy]

I don't get the renumber of 337 and 338.

336/337 are local Chermside-Chermside West-Aspley-Geebung-Chermside Community Buses and 338 serves Westfield Chermside to Westfield Strathpine.

[AnonymouslyBad]

SurfRail's list looks pretty solid

At a quick glance, my tweaks would be:
- Wouldn't merge all those routes. Interchange is p%ss-easy on the busway (or it should be if the routing is consistent) and it's actually harder to understand through routes at a glance.
- I'm not so keen on all those Capt Cook Bridge routes in KGSBS, (or the similar variations for northside routes). CBD stops should be clearly linked to a certain path out of the CBD, at least to the maximum extent possible. If these through running routes are supposed to be the most legible, and facilitate easy interchange, they should stay on the busway, no exceptions. (I imagine QSBS is the best link to CCB, which I know raises issues of its own but QSBS needs careful consideration in any case.)
- I'd also suggest Adelaide St can handle significantly more services (4xx!), which is far preferable to running them elsewhere and AIUI greatly reducing interchange.

...okay, so that ended up sounding more critical than it was supposed to. Those are minor points, really, in the overall scheme which looks a lot better than what we have now. Sorry I couldn't be more constructive and draw up a map... maybe when I have more time on my hands...

[SurfRail]

One issue I have is that the 130,150 are to long to be reliable enough for through running and 150a/150b need to leave from same stop. Other than that great job in cleaning up the current cluster......... of bus routes


And I 100% agree with western suburbs feeders.

My reasoning was that although longer services, they use a considerably greater portion of the busway as a proportion of their length (both on the southside and from next year the northside).  Consequently, you wouldn't have the massive problems that comparable services in Adelaide have (eg the J1), which only have fairly limited bus priority outside the O-Bahn (and virtually none in the CBD).

The alternative is you just run them to Roma Street, or QUT, or the RBWH, and that the northside ones extend to the Gabba.

[SurfRail]

^To be honest, I reckon all of the major shopping centre Interchanges (Carindale, Hyperdome, Brookside (Though ones feeding there should continue the short distance to the Ferny Grove line), Garden City, Chermside) are all adequate nodes to implement feeders too. Particularly with Indro, Garden City and Carindale you have 7.5 min frequency, so no real penalty for interchange these days)

Agreed, which is why services like the 161, 183 etc have been cut back under my listing.  I left in a lot more of the existing northside services because they continue to serve different corridors approaching the CBD - nowhere near as much of a funnelling effect.

[SurfRail]

I don't get the renumber of 337 and 338.

336/337 are local Chermside-Chermside West-Aspley-Geebung-Chermside Community Buses and 338 serves Westfield Chermside to Westfield Strathpine.

I am aware of those routes.  I think the peak hour services should have a defining element to link them all together, and an '8' suffix seems to suit.  There's no magic in it - you can play with numbers to suit, as long as they are legible.  (Case in point - the 227 was called the 222 until a few years ago, when the number was appropriated for the then future Eastern Busway spine route.)

I was thinking for instance of calling the "northern" 150 (the Stretton to ATO one) the 160, as that makes sense to me - obviously the existing 160 has vanished from my plans in favour of more 111s.

[somebody]

I'd caution against combining QSBS and CCB.  The Queens Wharf Rd route destroys most or all of the gains of the CCB.

[SurfRail]

Wouldn't merge all those routes. Interchange is p%ss-easy on the busway (or it should be if the routing is consistent) and it's actually harder to understand through routes at a glance.

I actually tend to agree, having observed how badly this works in Adelaide.  The throughrouting is only an option, in the event you start running out of terminating space.

I'm not so keen on all those Capt Cook Bridge routes in KGSBS, (or the similar variations for northside routes). CBD stops should be clearly linked to a certain path out of the CBD, at least to the maximum extent possible. If these through running routes are supposed to be the most legible, and facilitate easy interchange, they should stay on the busway, no exceptions. (I imagine QSBS is the best link to CCB, which I know raises issues of its own but QSBS needs careful consideration in any case.)

No matter where those services do end up in town, I think they should be using the Capt Cook Bridge because it is a faster trip, the majority of pax will be going to town and can transfer to a 111, less congestion at CCBS and you can turn buses around more quickly.  If the services are not going to be throughrouted then we can reassess where they might finish up.

QSBS could do with a slight rebuild to allow B platform services to reverse without having to leave the station, but I don't know how feasible that would be.  It may be cheaper to just have buses run the current lap around the Casino.

I'd also suggest Adelaide St can handle significantly more services (4xx!), which is far preferable to running them elsewhere and AIUI greatly reducing interchange.

Some of the Gardens services perhaps.  The advantage of the Gardens (Alice St) is that there is heaps of layover and kerb space just sitting there.

I've assigned the 4## series routes to Ann Street so it is easier to get onto Coronation Drive instead of doing a dogleg from Adelaide St via George St.  I think the pairing of Elizabeth and Ann is legible and easy to follow.

[Gazza]

^Is using CCB more about 'capacity' (via southbank can't take it), or about time saving (skipping 3 stations) though?

[somebody]

I've assigned the 4## series routes to Ann Street so it is easier to get onto Coronation Drive instead of doing a dogleg from Adelaide St via George St.  I think the pairing of Elizabeth and Ann is legible and easy to follow.

I must say, I prefer the Sydney "death to opposing moves" approach to this sort of thing.  Ann St is OK, except for the walk up the hill to get the O/B route!

[SurfRail]

^Is using CCB more about 'capacity' (via southbank can't take it), or about time saving (skipping 3 stations) though?

In my mind about 50% of each.  Even without capacity constraints, I would still push for some Captain Cook Bridge routes.

[Mr X]

I guess under your plan the 105 is scrapped? 

[SurfRail]

I guess under your plan the 105 is scrapped? 

Victim of the steam iron.

[somebody]

What serves Yeronga West?  And does the Ipswich Line-Beenleigh line connection fall to the 104 and GCL then?

[Mr X]

107? That doesn't serve Hyde Road though.
Extended 196 to Yeronga I dare say, people from Yeronga wouldn't want to go via West End to get to the city!

[SurfRail]

What serves Yeronga West?  And does the Ipswich Line-Beenleigh line connection fall to the 104 and GCL then?

107 and 108 are full time - 107 is realigned and goes no further than Yeerongpilly, and 108 does basically what it does now.  Doing both with the 105 is in nobody's best interest.

I was tossing up whether the 104 should also continue to the city so it can be overlaid with the 108 as far as Sherwood for a clockface timetable.

[somebody]

What serves Yeronga West?  And does the Ipswich Line-Beenleigh line connection fall to the 104 and GCL then?

107 and 108 are full time - 107 is realigned and goes no further than Yeerongpilly, and 108 does basically what it does now.  Doing both with the 105 is in nobody's best interest.

I was tossing up whether the 104 should also continue to the city so it can be overlaid with the 108 as far as Sherwood for a clockface timetable.

Ok; sorry.

[somebody]

(b)   From Roma Street (B platform)

325; 335; 350; 357; 359
(north-west services – 335 to be routed via INB and Roma St)

Confused by this.  Is it to be I/B via Roma St station, and O/B via Grey St?  Or O/B via George St?  Something else?

[SurfRail]

(b)   From Roma Street (B platform)

325; 335; 350; 357; 359
(north-west services – 335 to be routed via INB and Roma St)

Confused by this.  Is it to be I/B via Roma St station, and O/B via Grey St?  Or O/B via George St?  Something else?

Hm, something I haven't thought about too much.  I think via George Street would be easy enough to do as you wouldn't have the western services, and you could whack in a bus lane around the casino and as far as Adelaide Street.  (I know my intention was that they would run express through KGS.)

[somebody]

(b)   From Roma Street (B platform)

325; 335; 350; 357; 359
(north-west services – 335 to be routed via INB and Roma St)

Confused by this.  Is it to be I/B via Roma St station, and O/B via Grey St?  Or O/B via George St?  Something else?

Hm, something I haven't thought about too much.  I think via George Street would be easy enough to do as you wouldn't have the western services, and you could whack in a bus lane around the casino and as far as Adelaide Street.  (I know my intention was that they would run express through KGS.)

I'd much prefer just using KGSBS for these services.

[somebody]

2.   KGS routes

109+66 merger
111+333 merger - via Cultural Ctr
130+330 merger - via Capt Cook
140+340 merger - via Capt Cook
150B (from Gowan Rd to Browns Plains) + 345 merger - via Capt Cook
222 to RBWH - via Cultural Ctr
250 to Roma Street (maybe QUT) - via Capt Cook
385 to GOMA
444 to GOMA
555 to Roma Street (maybe QUT) - via Capt Cook

Disagree with almost everything here, I'm afraid.  130+330 would be longer than the current 250, which is thought by some to be too long.

[SurfRail]

2.   KGS routes

109+66 merger
111+333 merger - via Cultural Ctr
130+330 merger - via Capt Cook
140+340 merger - via Capt Cook
150B (from Gowan Rd to Browns Plains) + 345 merger - via Capt Cook
222 to RBWH - via Cultural Ctr
250 to Roma Street (maybe QUT) - via Capt Cook
385 to GOMA
444 to GOMA
555 to Roma Street (maybe QUT) - via Capt Cook

Disagree with almost everything here, I'm afraid.  130+330 would be longer than the current 250, which is thought by some to be too long.

Big difference between this type of through-routing and the 250, or Adelaide-type services, is the busways in both directions and in town.  But I agree generally.  This is the sort of thing we only need to contemplate if we start running out of space and need to ration it - otherwise we will go back to having buses and stands on every street in the CBD.

[Gazza]

...which is thought by some to be too long.

Haters gonna hate.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I don't mind trains having long routes as they travel along a dedicated path but if buses that use public roads for large routes I have a problem with as a small disruption like a car crash or congestion on the southside can have a massive knock on effect for the northside and vice versa.

[dwb]

It would be good to see some of the northen buz routes extended along the busway just to prevent the terminated ones blocking the exit for the CCBS. It should then be paired with getting rid of that intersection all thogether to enable a more constant flow and extend where the bottleneck starts (instead of busses driving/staying at the platform in the queue waiting for a green light).

Only when they seek to head north on Hope St.  If they head north on Grey St, they don't cause any bottleneck as there is a right turn lane exiting CCBS.

There is an exit but it just takes two busses to make it a very tight squeeze. It also brings forth longer dwell times waiting for the lights to change because of the multiple driving and pedestrian crossings patterns.

There is the opposing move.  I wonder if this is a reason why the Go Between Bridge is accessed via Melbourne St rather than Peel St or Stanley Pl?

As HappyTrainGuy points out, the right hand turn from Cultural into Grey St is actually a pretty major issue for the busway station's capacity.

Simon, I don't understand what you mean when you say "there is the opposing move"... would you explain pls.

Also, I think this thread should be linked to:
Next most pressing bus fix http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7022.0 and
Cultural Centre Congestion: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3356.msg76700#msg76700

[somebody]

As HappyTrainGuy points out, the right hand turn from Cultural into Grey St is actually a pretty major issue for the busway station's capacity.

Simon, I don't understand what you mean when you say "there is the opposing move"... would you explain pls.

I don't think it's as major as you two seem to think.  I've rarely seen buses waiting to make this move hold up others.  What I mean by the opposing move is those turning right into Grey St from the CC oppose buses heading from West End or the portal.

Buses wanting to run straight toward West End holding up buses heading towards South Bank happens all the time, I think it can be reduced.

[dwb]

As HappyTrainGuy points out, the right hand turn from Cultural into Grey St is actually a pretty major issue for the busway station's capacity.

Simon, I don't understand what you mean when you say "there is the opposing move"... would you explain pls.

I don't think it's as major as you two seem to think.  I've rarely seen buses waiting to make this move hold up others.  What I mean by the opposing move is those turning right into Grey St from the CC oppose buses heading from West End or the portal.

Buses wanting to run straight toward West End holding up buses heading towards South Bank happens all the time, I think it can be reduced.

DOes it really matter whether those right turning buses are holding up the ones behind them or the ones whose path they will cross when they get a green arrow?

The issue is simply that this is a bad place for that turning movement. The straight through at the portal HAS to exist, for West End services, so it might as well be optimised to be one crossing movement only. This would get rid of two other troublesome aspects at the other intersection.

[somebody]

As HappyTrainGuy points out, the right hand turn from Cultural into Grey St is actually a pretty major issue for the busway station's capacity.

Simon, I don't understand what you mean when you say "there is the opposing move"... would you explain pls.

I don't think it's as major as you two seem to think.  I've rarely seen buses waiting to make this move hold up others.  What I mean by the opposing move is those turning right into Grey St from the CC oppose buses heading from West End or the portal.

Buses wanting to run straight toward West End holding up buses heading towards South Bank happens all the time, I think it can be reduced.

DOes it really matter whether those right turning buses are holding up the ones behind them or the ones whose path they will cross when they get a green arrow?

The issue is simply that this is a bad place for that turning movement. The straight through at the portal HAS to exist, for West End services, so it might as well be optimised to be one crossing movement only. This would get rid of two other troublesome aspects at the other intersection.

Yes, but sending the 4xx that way increases the problem for no real reason.