It's time to improve New Farm public transport.

[ButFli]

I'm sure many of you wouldn't believe that public transport in New Farm is in crisis. What with 199 and 196 BUZ, CityGlider and CityCat all serving the suburb well.  I barely believe it myself! But let me tell you, it's almost impossible to get out of here on a weekday morning! I try and catch a bus on Brunswick Street at around 8am 5 days a week and I have to wait at least 15 minutes before a bus that isn't full turns up. That mightn't sound like very long but with the 199 being every 5 minutes, 196 every 10 minutes and some 195s thrown in there as well it really shouldn't be this bad. Public transport in New Farm is overloaded and I don't know what can be done about it.

So I guess I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on how capacity can be increased. Is it as simple as chucking more buses on? Or do we need something more extreme like trams or even a metro?

[ozbob]

In the longer term light metro ...

For now, additional short bus routes at peak.  Buses that start halfway along a route rather than back at the terminus. This would give more layered capacity where needed.

Railways have done this for ever.  Eg. Ipswich to CBD peaks, Darra/Corinda starters added.

[SurfRail]

More and more buses need to be using the Ivory Street tunnel, and higher capacity buses are needed.  Artics and tri-axle buses fit in the New Farm area otherwise they wouldn't have been/currently be used so consistently on the 196.

There also needs to be more of a focus on standing room, especially on shorter runs like these.

BCC needs to buy artics again.  You need the door clearing capacity of 3-4 doors, and a 2-door bus will simply not give it to you.  Artics and tri-axles need seats ripped out of the saloon to increase standing room.

There is no good reason I can think of why BCC couldn't specify a tender requiring 4-door buses.  The big issue is most chassis offered here are underfloor and rear-engined, meaning you can only have a low entry and not a low floor all the way to the back.  However, if BCC put out a tender for a sufficiently large quantity (200 or so), it may become feasible for foreign manufacturers to look at altering existing overseas designs so they comply with ADRs.  Scania already have a fully low-floor artic - there is one in the State Transit fleet and a few with the Grendas in Melbourne.  Those buses could conceivably have 4 doors, even if they have not been specced that way.

(Or maybe the much easier approach of trying to get an exemption around our stupid design rules which prevent most foreign integral buses from operating here because they are 5mm too wide or slightly overweight...)

[Gazza]

Would a James St BUZ help lighten the load on other routes?

[O_128]

I use the 199/196 daily and have the same issues

1. I sometimes stand at 11pm at night - both routes are full all day
2. The routes must be prepaid, Not only does it speed things up but stops the bunching of buses
3. bigger buses
4. make the 199 every 7.5 mins
5. James street BUZ feasibility study
6. Light rail feasibility study

Interesting comment the other day from someone on the bus, they were complaining about standing and traffic, The other commuter said only people who don't live in new farm actually drive there, the rest use PT and its pretty true.

[colinw]

Even with the buses overflowing, they are falling well short of the passenger numbers carried by the old tram system, with a tram every 2-3 minutes. (Brisbane was once noted for the best frequency of service of any of the Australian tram systems - how the mighty have fallen!)

I do not advocate putting back anything like the old BCC tramways, but clearly the ultimate solution is something in the spectrum from LRT through light metro to a full metro.

Until then, additional buses on existing routues &  new BUZ routes will have to do, but it will never be anything more than a stop-gap measure playing catch up with demand.

If the incoming Beattie Government had not canned the Newfarm to UQ "BrizTram" project in 1998, we would not be having this discussion.

[#Metro]

So I guess I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on how capacity can be increased. Is it as simple as chucking more buses on? Or do we need something more extreme like trams or even a metro?
   

This is my solution:

Buy a paint bucket and signs. Remove parking on the left lane and make into a T2 lane. This can be done overnight after consultation.
Add a service down James Street terminating at Brisbane powerhouse that's high frequency.
Put more buses on, and larger ones.

Problem solved.

We just don't have more cash for concrete anything right now.

[somebody]

Is it as simple as chucking more buses on?

I think so, and particularly 195s.

Regarding bigger buses, that only really works with 3 doors and probably all door boarding.  Given that Bowen Hills depot has no CNG refueling and all artics are CNG ATM bigger buses isn't really a right now solution.  They'd have to come from Willawong ATM!

[Golliwog]

Is it as simple as chucking more buses on?

I think so, and particularly 195s.

Regarding bigger buses, that only really works with 3 doors and probably all door boarding.  Given that Bowen Hills depot has no CNG refueling and all artics are CNG ATM bigger buses isn't really a right now solution.  They'd have to come from Willawong ATM!

What about the triaxials? They're not CNG are they? I do think there is a need for improved bus priority though as a measure to speed up how long it takes buses to get through New Farm/Fortitude Valley, and hence return to do another run.

[O_128]

Is it as simple as chucking more buses on?

I think so, and particularly 195s.

Regarding bigger buses, that only really works with 3 doors and probably all door boarding.  Given that Bowen Hills depot has no CNG refueling and all artics are CNG ATM bigger buses isn't really a right now solution.  They'd have to come from Willawong ATM!

What about the triaxials? They're not CNG are they? I do think there is a need for improved bus priority though as a measure to speed up how long it takes buses to get through New Farm/Fortitude Valley, and hence return to do another run.

I think someone tossed the idea around on here, What about making one lane of ann street to brunswick street bus only to stop buses having to do the annoying circuit around the valley?

[BrizCommuter]

It seems that TransLink are incapable of operating a bus route more frequently than every 5 minutes.

London's route 38 runs 29 buses per hour in the am peak, which is almost a bus every 2 minutes. It even runs 17 buses per hour at midday.

[somebody]

It seems that TransLink are incapable of operating a bus route more frequently than every 5 minutes.

London's route 38 runs 29 buses per hour in the am peak, which is almost a bus every 2 minutes. It even runs 17 buses per hour at midday.

Sydney has a few in peak too:
610X 19/hr
272 16/hr
246 27/hr
270 15/hr

There's 3 different operators in there!

What about the triaxials? They're not CNG are they? I do think there is a need for improved bus priority though as a measure to speed up how long it takes buses to get through New Farm/Fortitude Valley, and hence return to do another run.

Not sure but they could have issues with these buses around New Farm.

Just run more buses of whatever length.

Amending my previous comments, I do wonder if there is a case for a "new route" for peak only here, in spite of my usual criticisms of this solution.  Basically a 196 but not using Brunswick St twice.  197?  map

[Andrew]

I'd agree with the observations stated hear.  When Willawong depot used to do 196's, Peak hour could be insane.  The problem has been IMO that introducing the 196 BUZ actually made things a bit worse.  See between the 197/196 there used to be slightly more buses via Moray St & Barker St.  I noticed when the BUZ came in you'd get completely flogged along there every time.

The idea I had to fix up the 196 is a bit of a risky one but it might work.  Currently they're every 10 mins with every second bus via Ivory St.  Problem with that arrangement is the 196's bunch up over the Fairfield side because one's quicker than the other.  My solution was to have a 15 mins service via the Valley to Fairfield and alternate that with a 15 mins service via Ivory St to the City or Cultural Centre.  The big downside to my idea is then you have two variations in peak and that could create confusion among the patronage.

Another idea I had is a Prepaid variation of the 199 (P194?).  The idea I had in my head for a while (before reading this thread) is you replace the 199's via Ivory St with a prepaid service that runs express from Merthyr Rd Shops to Adelaide St stopping only at Brunswick St stop 5.  So the 199 and P194 would each run 10 mins.  The 195 would be made to run every 10 mins and alternate with the remaining 199's along Brunswick St.  Thus you preserve the 5 mins frequency and increase capacity so to speak.  With the 196 increase suggested above you could really boost the capacity.   

Thoughts?

[#Metro]

Why not run more 195's?

[somebody]

Why not run more 195's?

Part of the solution, but doesn't cover 196/199's off Brunswick St service.

Indeed, the 195 currently only runs every 20 minutes in peak + 1 service PM, +2 services AM.

The idea I had to fix up the 196 is a bit of a risky one but it might work.  Currently they're every 10 mins with every second bus via Ivory St.  Problem with that arrangement is the 196's bunch up over the Fairfield side because one's quicker than the other.  My solution was to have a 15 mins service via the Valley to Fairfield and alternate that with a 15 mins service via Ivory St to the City or Cultural Centre.  The big downside to my idea is then you have two variations in peak and that could create confusion among the patronage.

Another idea I had is a Prepaid variation of the 199 (P194?).  The idea I had in my head for a while (before reading this thread) is you replace the 199's via Ivory St with a prepaid service that runs express from Merthyr Rd Shops to Adelaide St stopping only at Brunswick St stop 5.  So the 199 and P194 would each run 10 mins.  The 195 would be made to run every 10 mins and alternate with the remaining 199's along Brunswick St.  Thus you preserve the 5 mins frequency and increase capacity so to speak.  With the 196 increase suggested above you could really boost the capacity.   

Thoughts?

The 199 via Ivory St/via Valley in peak isn't good but would be solved if all 199s went via Ivory St, preferably adding an RBH via Valley route in peak.

Your 196 suggestion would require changing the BUZ standard to 15 minutes in peak.  IMO, a positive move but was shouted at.  I see it as unlikely.  If the 196es stick to the timetable I don't see any issue counter peak.  Perhaps a big if.

[ozbob]

This is how to move them!

--> http://aso.gov.au/titles/historical/sydney-tramways/clip1/

It is astounding to see such a dense and seemingly endless stream of people moved so efficiently. An intertitle at the opening of this segment indicates that the trams transported over 1,000 people per minute away from the racecourse. The multi-door design allowed for passengers to alight and disembark quickly and easily.

[Andrew]

This is how to move them!

It is indeed!  Nothing like the good old days!  One slight problem with doing what that clip shows these days is, if you notice carefully, the trams were only stationery for a very short time and the boarding commenced before it stopped and finished as it was already moving off! 

[O_128]

This is how to move them!

It is indeed!  Nothing like the good old days!  One slight problem with doing what that clip shows these days is, if you notice carefully, the trams were only stationery for a very short time and the boarding commenced before it stopped and finished as it was already moving off! 

No reason why you still can't, we just seem to have to many useless people now who would get themselves hurt

[ozbob]

The Tait trains that I grew up on Melbourne were also great people movers, principally because of the multiple doors which allowed rapid boarding and detraining of pax.



Frequency and pax loads were a lot higher in days gone by than today.  We got tangled up with 'correctedness' ..

On hot days in Melbourne it was the custom to not close the doors, natural air-con (of sorts).  I can't recall anyone falling out ...

[#Metro]

Can't happen these days.

Do it and the next train after that train will be a train full... of lawyers

[ozbob]

Even with the buses overflowing, they are falling well short of the passenger numbers carried by the old tram system, with a tram every 2-3 minutes. (Brisbane was once noted for the best frequency of service of any of the Australian tram systems - how the mighty have fallen!)

I do not advocate putting back anything like the old BCC tramways, but clearly the ultimate solution is something in the spectrum from LRT through light metro to a full metro.

Until then, additional buses on existing routues &  new BUZ routes will have to do, but it will never be anything more than a stop-gap measure playing catch up with demand.

If the incoming Beattie Government had not canned the Newfarm to UQ "BrizTram" project in 1998, we would not be having this discussion.

Indeed,  and who knows, BrizTram might be reborn ...  the buses cannot cope for  much longer ...  DING DING!

[BrizCommuter]

Why not run more 195's?

Why not just increase the frequency of the 199 and 196? KISS principle.
5min to 4min frequency is a 25% capacity increase!  

This is how to move them!

It is indeed!  Nothing like the good old days!  One slight problem with doing what that clip shows these days is, if you notice carefully, the trams were only stationery for a very short time and the boarding commenced before it stopped and finished as it was already moving off!  

No reason why you still can't, we just seem to have to many useless people now who would get themselves hurt

There is a reason why you can't do that now - it's called Health & Safety!

[#Metro]

Indeed,  and who knows, BrizTram might be reborn ...  the buses cannot cope for  much longer ...  DING DING!

You mean BUSTram

On a more serious note, why can't they just have peak hour T2 lanes for now. If and when a North-South Subway gets built (ever) New Farm buses would dive into a busway station underneath the Valley Mall (with connections to trains and other buses and the NSS and then pop out the other side and head to RBWH.

There also needs to be a decent service down James Street that terminates at Brisbane Powerhouse.

[ozbob]

No doubt, the LNP with its latent desire to remove T2 and bus lanes is trying to emulate world class cities like .... Paris

[#Metro]

Why not just increase the frequency of the 199 and 196? KISS principle.
5min to 4min frequency is a 25% capacity increase!  

60/5 = 12 x 85 = 1020 pphd

60/4 = 15 x 85 = 1275 pphd

60/2 = 30 x 85 = 2250 pphd

A service every 2 minutes is possible IMHO - achieved on Coronation Drive in am peak IIRC.
It may not be reliable but that said, the next bus is only 2 minutes away.

Main game is to increase vehicle size though (frequency costs, bigger vehicles might be a problem with the Ivory St tunnel snake)  
and T2 lanes... T2 can be done OVERNIGHT.

[somebody]

Why not run more 195's?

Why not just increase the frequency of the 199 and 196? KISS principle.
5min to 4min frequency is a 25% capacity increase!  

Those routes actually go against the KISS principle - they have some trips via Valley and others via Ivory St.

Also, the part of Brunswick St between Elystan St and Merthyr Rd on the 196 requires a detour via Moray St combined with the possible detour via Valley.  Similarly the part of Brunswick St between Barker St and Merthyr Rd is only served by the 199 and 195.

The 195 is more the sort of route which should be promoted *, going direct from the CBD to Brunswick/Elystan.

* Ignoring the silly one street deviation in New Farm.

Main game is to increase vehicle size though

I fundamentally disagree with this.  The main game is increasing frequency.  Bigger vehicles do cost more and use more fuel, while spending a greater amount of time in their trip loading - unloading is not so important.

Even at higher frequencies like 8/hour increasing to 12/hour or decreasing to 6/hour is still noticeable.

[ButFli]

It seems that TransLink are incapable of operating a bus route more frequently than every 5 minutes.

London's route 38 runs 29 buses per hour in the am peak, which is almost a bus every 2 minutes. It even runs 17 buses per hour at midday.

Sydney has a few in peak too:
610X 19/hr
272 16/hr
246 27/hr
270 15/hr

There's 3 different operators in there!

What about the triaxials? They're not CNG are they? I do think there is a need for improved bus priority though as a measure to speed up how long it takes buses to get through New Farm/Fortitude Valley, and hence return to do another run.

Not sure but they could have issues with these buses around New Farm.

Just run more buses of whatever length.

The three axle buses get around New Farm alright but they do have to slow to a snail's pace to get into the Ivory Street Tunnel from the Brunswick Street end. The main problem with them is they take fooooreeeveeer to load and unload. The doors and aisle are the same size but there are extra passengers. Best keep these for routes where the stops are spaced widely.

James Street BUZ and RBH route aren't going to fix this problem IMO.

Increasing 195 frequency is the best short term fix. The other routes don't quite fill until they get to Brunswick St so adding extra capacity along there should provide seats where they are needed. Anyone know what capacity is like on the West End side? It might be handy to extend the 195s across the river (but not as far as West End Ferry).

Ultimately I'd like to see light rail along the New Farm half of the 199 route with the possibility of crossing the river at Teneriffe to serve Oxford St in Bulimba. Haha I can always dream.

[#Metro]

Jarrett always says that speed saves... so T2 lanes should be done, even if only in peak.

I agree with Simon on the 195 - ideally they should mirror existing routes but just skip stops for speed. Oh well.

I fundamentally disagree with this.  The main game is increasing frequency.  Bigger vehicles do cost more and use more fuel, while spending a greater amount of time in their trip loading - unloading is not so important.

Simon, you are correct that bigger vehicles do use more fuel and cost more to buy. However, that has to be balanced against the main cost - *labour* which is somewhere around $28 per hour or thereabouts.

Going from four minutes to two minutes doubles the labour cost. Perhaps there is a curve where at some point there is an optimum. Frequencies below 5 minutes really don't save much time at all.

I really would like a 300 pax tram to go down there but we just don't have $$ for more and more concrete everywhere. We don't...

One thing that gets up my nose is the valley split between Wickham and Ann streets. Cant they just make both streets two way for a bit?

[#Metro]

60/5 = 12 x 85 = 1020 pphd

60/4 = 15 x 85 = 1275 pphd

60/2 = 30 x 85 = 2250 pphd

Going by this, it should be possible to more than double capacity by going from buses every 5 minutes to buses every 2 minutes.
However, at this frequency and at peak hour, the extra buses all need to be bought new ($500 000 - $750 000 each) and new drivers
and more labour cost. A large vehicle running at 5 minute frequencies in peak hour would be more than sufficient - so yes, a superbus
carrying 100 pax might be the go for the medium-short term, take out the turning lane to widen the snake entry into the Ivory St Tunnel.

60/5 = 12 x 100 = 1200
60/4 = 15 x 100 = 1500
60/2 = 30 x 100 = 3000

Hmm... it does seem what Simon is saying is right - larger buses only appear significantly improve capacities at ultra-high frequencies...
In Class C ROW (or even B ROW) like New Farm I would suggest the upper limit for BRT is around 3000 pphd before hitting mega problems.
10 000 pphd appears in Lord Mayor's Mass Transit Report somewhere but that would mean each bus would have to carry 333 pax each and
in a place like New Farm, that's not going to happen.

[ozbob]

They are about to hit the bus wall.  Give the buses priority or stand by for failure.

It is obvious that a rail solution is needed in the longer term. 

[somebody]

Ultimately I'd like to see light rail along the New Farm half of the 199 route with the possibility of crossing the river at Teneriffe to serve Oxford St in Bulimba. Haha I can always dream.

Without promoting PT use in New Farm I think this won't get community support.  Increasing bus services is the right now solution.

Jarrett always says that speed saves... so T2 lanes should be done, even if only in peak.

I agree with Simon on the 195 - ideally they should mirror existing routes but just skip stops for speed. Oh well.

I fundamentally disagree with this.  The main game is increasing frequency.  Bigger vehicles do cost more and use more fuel, while spending a greater amount of time in their trip loading - unloading is not so important.

Simon, you are correct that bigger vehicles do use more fuel and cost more to buy. However, that has to be balanced against the main cost - *labour* which is somewhere around $28 per hour or thereabouts.

Going from four minutes to two minutes doubles the labour cost. Perhaps there is a curve where at some point there is an optimum. Frequencies below 5 minutes really don't save much time at all.

I really would like a 300 pax tram to go down there but we just don't have $$ for more and more concrete everywhere. We don't...

One thing that gets up my nose is the valley split between Wickham and Ann streets. Cant they just make both streets two way for a bit?

But running via the Valley is OK?

Honestly, stop making simple things hard!  Just run more 195s.

[#Metro]

But running via the Valley is OK?

Honestly, stop making simple things hard!  Just run more 195s.

Simon, I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm agreeing!!
More 195's. T2 Lanes.For now

A tram carrying 400 pax x 15 = 6000 pphd, short work, but then getting a Class B ROW might be rather hard. No more Class C ROW with rail tracks in general
traffic please, the service would have to be below grade rapid transit - busway or LRT terminating at Fortitude Valley rail IMHO and getting people to transfer to rail at the Valley as
one option.

There are only 4 lanes on Brunswick street.
Lane 0 - we use the footpath as a platform
Lane 1 - city bound track
Lane 2 - return track
Lane 3 - platform

That leaves 1 lane - for bicycles I guess. Yeah, I don't see how that will work with deliveries etc. Can't resume properties, too expensive.

A cut-and-cover tunnel could work - dig up the street, make a trench, lay liners and rail underneath there, cover it up again. Will also make the service faster. This form of
tunneling is cheaper than getting tunnel machines and is actually how the TTC got the Yonge-University-Spadina line in Toronto first built.

[#Metro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel#Cut-and-cover

I have to say, moving all the services - power, sewerage, stormwater, gas under Brunswick street is going to cost and be a huge pain in the @ss plus
it is a restaurant district as well so any medium to long term plans will have to be done properly.

Cut-and-cover

Cut-and-cover is a simple method of construction for shallow tunnels where a trench is excavated and roofed over with an overhead support system strong enough to carry the load of what is to be built above the tunnel. Two basic forms of cut-and-cover tunnelling are available:

Bottom-up method: A trench is excavated, with ground support as necessary, and the tunnel is constructed in it. The tunnel may be of in situ concrete, precast concrete, precast arches,or corrugated steel arches; in early days brickwork was used. The trench is then carefully back-filled and the surface is reinstated.

Top-down method: Here side support walls and capping beams are constructed from ground level by such methods as slurry walling, or contiguous bored piling. Then a shallow excavation allows making the tunnel roof of precast beams or in situ concrete. The surface is then reinstated except for access openings. This allows early reinstatement of roadways, services and other surface features. Excavation then takes place under the permanent tunnel roof, and the base slab is constructed.

Shallow tunnels are often of the cut-and-cover type (if under water, of the immersed-tube type), while deep tunnels are excavated, often using a tunnelling shield. For intermediate levels, both methods are possible.

Large cut-and-cover boxes are often used for underground metro stations, such as Canary Wharf tube station in London. This construction form generally has two levels, which allows economical arrangements for ticket hall, station platforms, passenger access and emergency egress, ventilation and smoke control, staff rooms, and equipment rooms. The interior of Canary Wharf station has been likened to an underground cathedral, owing to the sheer size of the excavation. This contrasts with most traditional stations on London Underground, where bored tunnels were used for stations and passenger access.

[#Metro]

On the way to New Farm/Bulimba in 2031...  

BUT YES MORE 195's ...

[HappyTrainGuy]

Paris must not have heard about the technology called traffic lights

[somebody]

Paris must not have heard about the technology called traffic lights

They have these other things called roundabouts.

Interesting about the trams running through though.

[BrizCommuter]

Paris must not have heard about the technology called traffic lights

Doesn't look like Paris to BrizCommuter. That is not a Parisian Tram!

[O_128]

Just to clarify a few points.

1. T2 lanes are required on ann street but brunswick doesn't get to congested, theres actually more congestion out of peak as the outside lanes can be used for parking.

2.Frequency in peak is at the stage where you never wait more than 3-5 mins for a bus, however those buses are full so capacity needs to be improved

3. Keep the 195 as peak only but every 10 min, make the 199 via valley, but make one of the inbound ann st lanes and outbound bus only lane so as to reduce waiting times in the PM peak.

4.Begin to investigate  light rail. The cityglider route isn't the right candidate for light rail IMO, the 199 should be done first.

[somebody]

Just to clarify a few points.

1. T2 lanes are required on ann street but brunswick doesn't get to congested, theres actually more congestion out of peak as the outside lanes can be used for parking.

2.Frequency in peak is at the stage where you never wait more than 3-5 mins for a bus, however those buses are full so capacity needs to be improved

3. Keep the 195 as peak only but every 10 min, make the 199 via valley, but make one of the inbound ann st lanes and outbound bus only lane so as to reduce waiting times in the PM peak.

4.Begin to investigate  light rail. The cityglider route isn't the right candidate for light rail IMO, the 199 should be done first.

T2 lanes on Ann St not required with via Ivory St routings!  And already present west of Queen St.

195 does nothing for Merthyr Rd.

What's the point in proposing light rail if we can't even get Ivory St routes for New Farm?  That implies mediocre usage where we have to deviate to justify our existence!

[#Metro]

1. T2 lanes are required on ann street but brunswick doesn't get to congested, theres actually more congestion out of peak as the outside lanes can be used for parking.

That's interesting - I've been there in the mornings and it has been quite congested. I will be going past tomorrow so I will have another peek. I still think peak hour T2 lanes would be a good idea along the length of Brunswick Street. Paint can and sign level of cost and can be done overnight.

2.Frequency in peak is at the stage where you never wait more than 3-5 mins for a bus, however those buses are full so capacity needs to be improved

Yes, I totally agree.

3. Keep the 195 as peak only but every 10 min, make the 199 via valley, but make one of the inbound ann st lanes and outbound bus only lane so as to reduce waiting times in the PM peak.

Agree. Maybe it needs a bit more of a boost.

4.Begin to investigate  light rail. The cityglider route isn't the right candidate for light rail IMO, the 199 should be done first.

I think all options should be looked at for a rapid transit line. Light metro might be a contender capacitywise and automation wise, buses would allow services to go to Bulimba ultimately and flexibility, Light Rail would have capacity and ability to run on surface streets. The bit in West End needs to be thought about though as the ICRCS suggested a second CRR tunnel - CRR2 through that area.