30 issues Translink should be addressing (mostly concerning buses)

[somebody]

Long post warning

I'm thinking of putting forward to Translink my list of problems with what they are doing, even given the available funding.  Of course, they would totally ignore it so maybe the Minister might be better.  Except for the last 5 points, this list shouldn't cost much more to implement than what is currently being spent.

Am I leaving any of the little things out?  I'm ignoring things like frequency and rail timetabling here.

• 1: Consultation. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3477.0 I'd also add the 400 bus route, which we were given 3 days notice for.
• 2: Bunched bus services.  When I have to get in to the city from Indooroopilly shops on a weekend, usually I have to be there on the hour.  That means that I need to catch the 444 which comes at 23 past the hour and gets me there around 15 minutes early.  The part which is annoying about this is that 3 buses come around 38 past the hour.  One of these should be moved to come around half past the hour.  You may think that if I have a 15 minute service, then I shouldn't complain but I don't agree.  For no extra money I could have an excellent service, it's just Translink's recalcitrance which prevents this.  Sydney buses certainly don't take this attitude when you look at the co-ordination between 373 and 377 bus routes.  When the 373 is running 4 times an hour, it's co-ordinated with the 377 such that a 10 minute frequency is achieved between Randwick and Circular Quay.
• 3: City stop locations.  When there is a given bus corridor, such as to Indooroopilly which is used by several routes, all of those routes should have their stops at the same locations in the city.  On the Coronation Drive corridor, you are forced to contend with 4 different places to grab a bus service: Adelaide St stop 40 for a 411/415/433/445, Adelaide St stop 16 for 412, King George Square bus station for a 444, and Queen St bus station platform B for a 425/430/435/450/453/454/460.  At least the various rocket services mostly come in the same places here.  Mains Rd/Warrigal Rd/Beaudesert Rd, where at least you only have Adelaide St stop 42 or Queen St bus station (ignoring the 153 and City Precincts service).  This is not important heading inbound though.  It also would not be important for a rocket service IF it were the case that it would be faster to wait for the next rocket service than to grab a normal service when you have just missed the rocket service.  It's not clear if there are any corridors this applies to, but the 153 may be one.  Again, Sydney buses are able to achieve this, so it's not clear why it's a problem for Translink to do so.
• 4: Another corridor would be the Ipswich Rd corridor where some buses (100/110/115) run from the Queen St bus station, but others (117/124/125/172) run from Adelaide St.  These services should be kept together as a block, and I would also question the Woolloongabba bus station routing.  Why not use the O'Keefe St portal of the Eastern Busway? If the services which would be advantaged by it aren't going to use it, then why was it built?
• 5: Slow Roma St-Herschel St-North Quay-Adelaide St/Elizabeth St/Margaret St inbound routing for bus routes 380-383, P374, P343, 363, 375, 379, 390, 470, 475, perhaps some others.
• 6: Slow Roma St portal-Turbot St inbound routing for 350, 351, 352, 357, 359 buses, probably some others.  For the 350 & 352, it would be faster to stick on Roma St and service stop 124 or 125 instead of the busway station, although I'm in favour of servicing the busway station outbound.
• 7: Wasteful routing via the Cultural Centre of the N330 and N390.  These would be better off sticking to George St until Turbot St and then entering the busway.  The inbound N330 could just use Turbot St with a stop either at Roma St 124 or 125, leaving the busway at Skew St, or somewhere near the corner of Turbot St and Roma St
• 8: Wasteful routing via Sylvan Rd and Coronation Drive of the N464.  Coronation Drive is already served by the N412
• 9: Wasteful routing of the N385 via the Cultural Centre, when it would be faster to just stick to George St & Roma St outbound, and inbound Roma St & Turbot St, again with a stop either at Roma St 124 or 125, or near the corner of Roma St & Turbot St.
• 10: Wasteful routing of the 136 via Kessels Rd and Garden City when a stop at Griffith Uni would do, so long as the buses which it is desired to change from would also stop here.
• 11: Apparently wasteful northbound routing of the 331/332/341 via Turbot St and Boundary St when Wickham Tce and Upper Edward St would be faster.
• 12: Debatably wasteful southbound routing of the 331/332/341/370/375/379 at Royal Brisbane Hospital via the busway station means that they must cross Bowen Bridge Rd twice to service the busway station.  It's not clear why this is desirable, as I can't see too many services you would want to interchange with here that you couldn't do at other places.  A stop on Bowen Bridge Rd would be adequate until the busway is extended in my opinion.
• 13: Lack of a single seat connection between Roma St and the PA Hospital, discounting the indirect and infrequent 475 and 476.  To a lesser degree, the lack of a single seat connection between Roma St and UQ St Lucia is also a problem for north western Brisbane's bus commuters.  This could be provided by a combined 66 and 109 route, with Woolloongabba remaining connected to Roma St by extending other runs which are now terminating at the Cultural Centre, such as the 333/330/340.  
• 14: Sacred cow "all BUZ routes must service the Cultural Centre" slows down the 130/140/150 when it seems pretty clear they would be faster if using the Captain Cook Bridge full time.  Seems that the only reason they should be stopping here is my point 2: City stop locations are inconsistent.  I would have these routes and the P157 join the P129/131/P133/P137/P141/P142/P151/156 at Adelaide St stop 48 and Creek St stops 148 & 149 for the outbound services, subject to there being enough room at said stops.  If not, adjacent stops then.  The reason why I am targeting these routes, is because if speeding them up is important enough to have them express through Buranda, Greenslopes and Holland Park West, it is illogical to have them deviate via South Bank.  The main problem with this is that it would then require a double change to get to Woolloongabba.  It the long term this could be solved by an Eight Mile plains-Gabba route, but I'm not sure that is required now.
• 15: Inconsistencies in the pre-paid bus route changes.  For example, the P341 is now pre-paid in spite of the 340 not operating during the peak in the peak direction, but the 153 is not pre-paid (perhaps due to servicing "The Oaks" stop).  Also, the 136 and 156 seem to apparently not be pre-paid for just a few stops.  This appears to be the main reason for routes only slightly different from each other like the 156 and P157.  I suppose if the P341 were not pre paid, then that would then be more consistent, at least.  If there hasn't been an outcry here, I think that should probably tell you something about the 131, 136, 153 and 156 going pre paid though.  It's also unclear why the 376, 382, 383, 431, 436 and 446 aren't pre paid.
• 16: Lack of a 417 counter peak service for Meiers Rd, Indooroopilly workers before 7:50AM and after 6PM.  It would actually be adequate if it ran to/started from Lambert Rd/Central Ave, rather than empty running between Long Pocket and the Toowong depot.  The opportunity for this one has all but passed though, given that the ecosciences precinct will probably be no more than a year away.
• 17: All stops should appear on destination displays for services which stop at all stops.  Are you ashamed of stopping at all stops?
• 18: Annoying dwells at Roma St.  These slow down services for people on the lines to the south and west.  Shouldn't all the recovery time be done at Central?  CityRail are able to run a moderately reliable network with no recovery time and exceedingly long routes such as Cambelltown to the city via East Hills then to either Ashfield or Liverpool via Granville; or Penrith to Berowra via the city, why does QR need recovery time at multiple locations?
• 19: Current outbound off peak routing of the 4xx expresses via Grey St, Milton Rd and Cribb St is unacceptable, and the peak routing of the expresses and rockets is even worse (except for 412 & 443).  This means the expresses get caught in both the Milton Rd traffic and the Coronation Drive traffic.  Options to fix this that I see are (a) continuing on Milton Rd and using Jephson St (in both directions, and the 444 should go along for this ride) (b) using the Go Between Bridge outbound once that's available (c) removing these buses from Queen St bus station.
• 20: Current 443 outbound routing is a bit illogical.  If Coronation Drive is faster, why not use the Roma St portal near Ann St and the Ann St ramp onto the Riverside expressway; the 444 can cover Roma St station.  Alternatively if Milton Rd is faster, why not stick on that until Croydon St.  My personal get feeling is that Milton Rd would be faster.  Also, whichever is the faster route should also be followed by the 426, 431 and 446.
• 21: Routes 111 & 160.  Why two routes?  Shouldn't the 160 be canned and its frequency cannibalised for extra 111 services?  This would make it much easier to get the next busway all stops service from the city as there would be only one stop location.
• 22: Route 180 corridor: The 180 has less time allocated to it between Buranda and Garden City than the P179, in spite of following the same route and making the same stops, and the latter being pre paid.  Isn't it about time that the 180 timings were reviewed?  Also the P189 should serve the "Holland Rd" stop and the P179 bypass this inbound, following the Cavendish Rd and Chatsworth Rd routing like the 181 does.  Also, it doesn't seem to make much sense to have the P189 for inbound only.
• 23: Dumb routing of the 4xx city express services (not 412) inbound in the AM peak via North Quay when it would clearly be faster to access the busway at Skew St.  Not that I'm particularly in favour of this solution alone as I think Queen St Platform B would be better used in the AM peak for receiving P343/351/363/P374/376/382/383 services, and some others. See next point
• 24: The Queen St Platform B infrastructure is a problem in that it only allows access in a single direction, and the present way the 4xx services use it is a poor compromise, especially in the PM peak.  A better idea would be moving the 170, 180, 184 and 185 combined with the 171, P176, P179, 180, 181 and 186 in the PM peak to Queen St Platform B, but keep the 17x and 18x rocket service arrivals on Elizabeth St while having the current 425, 430, 433, 435, 443, 444, 445, 450, 453, 454, 460 use the space in Platform C.  Doing that would allow those 4xx expresses to turn right from the platform in the PM peak and access either the Riverside Expressway via the Roma St portal near Ann St, or Milton Rd via the portal at Skew St, and also co-locate the 184/185 with the 180, since they both serve part of Cavendish Rd.  In the AM peak, routes listed in the previous point could move to Queen St platform B and the 426, 431, 436, 446, 455, 456, 461 could continue to use Queen St platform B, but would need street stop locations in the PM peak.  This would mean that only 6 buses an hour off peak need to suffer the inconvenience of the bus turnaround, but Queen St bus station Platform B is as utilised as present.  It would also give a single city stop for Indooroopilly services, even though there are still multiple departure points for buses to Toowong.  This would also free up space in King George Square bus station for Kelvin Grove Rd or The Gap services.  So long as the services are staggered correctly, I see no issue with running the 24 buses/hour in peak out of the 2 stops of Platform C, but it does suffer from the problem that the rocket and express services can't be co-located.  Premium platform A space or street stops would be required to achieve this.  This is another problem with the sacred cow "all BUZ routes must service the Cultural Centre":  In an ideal world, the 444 should keep serving Roma St station, at least until the Go Between Bridge goes through.  If all the 4xx services are to be given street stops rather than use the Go Between Bridge outbound, then I still think moving the 17x and 18x services as described makes sense, but some other corridor could be put into platform C.  Ipswich Rd may be a good alternative.
• 25: The 209 should stick to Logan Rd and O'Keefe St and use the old O'Keefe St portal and serve Buranda rather than Woolloongabba.  This would be a fair bit faster, and anyone travelling from the Gabba to UQ Lakes can change at Mater Hill for a 109.
• 26: After about 7:30pm on a weekday the 453 & 454 drop back to hourly.  Wouldn't a half hourly 450 be better?
• 27: Counter peak services: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3419.0
• 28: Why an N464 instead of an N444 service?  Forest Lake Blvd could be served by extending the N100
• 29: Why an N111 instead of an N150 service?  (except that the latter is longer).  This and the above would mean all the BUZ corridors are served by Nightlink except for the 345
• 30: Also, the lack of any bus priority on Coronation Drive, Moggill Rd, the Captain Cook Bridge and southbound on Mains Rd is a severe problem.  It's also a problem on Elizabeth St and southbound on Kelvin Grove Rd, the shortness of the northbound transit lane doesn't help either. Bus lanes are significantly better than transit lanes and can be camera enforced, which is a big advantage.
• 31: Routing of the 199 via Warner St is slower than a full time Ivory St routing.  If the 196/197 are left alone, then there is still a New farm-Valley connection, so I suggest routing the 199 full time via Ivory St in both directions.
• 32: AM 457/458/459 route means using busy and traffic light filled North Quay.  I suggest that the City Precincts service is tagged on to the 455/456 in the AM and the 457/458/459 made PM peak only.  I'd suggest that this would be an equally fast AM service, if not faster, and the additional frequency is a big plus.  Of course, if Coronation Drive is, in fact, faster, nothing would stop routing that way with a stop at Cribb St instead of the stop at Milton station, and a turn up Skew St.

EDIT: Realised that the 443 inbound routing should be left alone, added points 31 & 32.
EDIT: updated point 6

[ozbob]

Some excellent suggestions.  Thanks for posting them.

[#Metro]

I think the evaluation and appraisal of the network should be done by an external and independent auditor/engineering firm rather than translink.

This independent, contracted auditor would collect the data, make up their own measures of performance (that will get rid of the spin statistics- like "on time performance" excluding all non-peak hour services) and find problems and suggest ways to fix them.

[stephenk]

I disagree with point 12. The 37x services in particular are quite popular from RBWH station inbound. Having a choice of two stops at RBWH doesn't make sense. 

I would also add that having two outbound stops on Brunswick St outside Fortitude Valley station is dumb. Half of the buses go from one stop, and half from the other. If you are at the wrong stop, you won't get to the bus at the other stop by the time it departs. Annoying!

[somebody]

I disagree with point 12. The 37x services in particular are quite popular from RBWH station inbound. Having a choice of two stops at RBWH doesn't make sense. 

Thought you might.  But you would still have a single stop for the via Valley services, and a different single stop for the via busway services.  What do you need a common stop for services going to different places for?

I would also add that having two outbound stops on Brunswick St outside Fortitude Valley station is dumb. Half of the buses go from one stop, and half from the other. If you are at the wrong stop, you won't get to the bus at the other stop by the time it departs. Annoying!

Not familiar with this one, but if that's the situation then I agree it needs fixing.

[stephenk]

I disagree with point 12. The 37x services in particular are quite popular from RBWH station inbound. Having a choice of two stops at RBWH doesn't make sense. 

Thought you might.  But you would still have a single stop for the via Valley services, and a different single stop for the via busway services.  What do you need a common stop for services going to different places for?

1)The access to RBWH station is much better than Bowen Bridge Rd (across two road crossings).
2)The Bowen Bridge Rd bus stops are now defunct.
3)Stopping buses on Bowen Bridge Rd would hold up a traffic lane.
4)It gives customers choice of routes into the city from RBWH station.
5)It would confuse infrequent users.
5)The difference in journey times by either route is minimal.
6)It would be silly not to use millions of $$$ worth of new infrastructure.
7)When the busway is extended the 37x will use busway anyway.

Is that enough reasons?

[somebody]

Is that enough reasons?

Perhaps, although I don't think 2, 4, 6 ,7 are valid reasons not to use it now.  I'd think the difference in journey times would be 3-5mins?  But 1, 3, 5a are all valid reasons.

[somebody]

I think I'll remove point 12: it's too arguable, so talking about that would detract from addressing the other issues.

I would also add a couple of others:
31: Routing of the 199 via Warner St is slower than a full time Ivory St routing.  If the 196/197 are left alone, then there is still a New farm-Valley connection, so I suggest routing the 199 full time via Ivory St in both directions.
32: AM 457/458/459 route means using busy and traffic light filled North Quay.  I suggest that the City Precincts service is tagged on to the 455/456 in the AM and the 457/458/459 made PM peak only.  I'd suggest that this would be an equally fast AM service, if not faster, and the additional frequency is a big plus.  Of course, if Coronation Drive is, in fact, faster, nothing would stop routing that way with a stop at Cribb St instead of the stop at Milton station, and a turn up Skew St.

[#Metro]

, so I suggest routing the 199 full time via Ivory St in both directions.

What about everyone that wants to get off in the valley?

[longboi]

, so I suggest routing the 199 full time via Ivory St in both directions.

What about everyone that wants to get off in the valley?

CityFlyer?

[somebody]

, so I suggest routing the 199 full time via Ivory St in both directions.

What about everyone that wants to get off in the valley?

Are you talking about City-Valley commutes?  There's plenty of other services, including trains.

If you are talking about New Farm-Valley commutes, then:

If the 196/197 are left alone, then there is still a New farm-Valley connection,

So, it's only a real problem for the bit of the 199 in between Merthyr Rd/Brunswick St and the Teneriffe Ferry.  At each end of that stretch you have alternate services (470/City Glider at the Ferry end, and that's gives a fair bit faster trip besides).  Most people could also walk the distance between Ivory St and Ann St without too much difficulty.  I think inconveniencing the 80% for the 20% is not the way to run a PT system.

[somebody]

A couple of points I didn't completely address in my original post:
5: Eastbound routing of the 375, 379, 380, 381, 390, 470, 475, 476.  One possibility to fix these is to run along Roma St, Turbot St, Edward St and either Queen or Elizabeth Sts.  In the case of the 390, it makes some sense to put this one in the KGSBS.  The 370 should also serve the same stops in the city as the 375 and 379 if possible.
6: What has been proposed so far is OK for the 350-2, and the 357 could also use QSBS B in the AM, but that's not so good for the 359.  The only good solution I see is using KGSBS for all of the Kelvin Grove Rd and Stewart Rd services.
24b: An alternative to what's been proposed in point 24 is moving the southbound stops from KGSBS to QSBS Platform B.  Main problem with this is that it doesn't have any stops suitable for bendy buses.  If applied to all the rigid bus routes (444/443/385/345/330/333/340), it would still free up enough space in KGSBS to allow in the 350-2, 357, 359 and the 4xx services.  A group could start & terminate on the southbound platform, then use the bus turnaround and head toward Roma St without needing to stop at the Northbound platform.  I see this being best done with the Kelvin Grove Rd services, but that would mean that the 345 couldn't service the Cultural Centre (another problem with the sacred cow).  If the 4xx services were to operate this way, you'd still have the 444 BUZ which couldn't service the Cultural Centre.
33: The P222 has an odd route in that it serves all the same stops as the 200 except for the Gabba and QSBS.  If it's a rocket, why not use the Captain Cook Bridge like other rockets do?  Also the extension to Roma St appears to accomplish little.  It should be extended further to RB&WH if the intention is to provide a one seat journey to different locations.  If the intention is just to take pressure off the 200, a QSBS stop would be much better.  Even in the latter case, the South Bank routing makes little sense in my book.

[#Metro]

There are just too many bus routes and buses in Brisbane

1. Cut the number of routes down, with the freed up buses going to increase the frequency. Little point having multiple buses run parallel when they could run together on one corridor.

2. More cross town services. This means Cultural Centre terminators should be banned.

3. Increase the frequency, this means more BUZ services. Inala BUZ should be on the cards.
4. Bus lanes on Captain Cook Bridge and Coro drive

5. Shift some more routes to the Expressway, for the whole day.

6. Local high frequency buses

[longboi]

2. More cross town services. This means Cultural Centre terminators should be banned.

But then you have those pesky "via City" type routes which can be unreliable during peak.

[somebody]

There are just too many bus routes and buses in Brisbane

1. Cut the number of routes down, with the freed up buses going to increase the frequency. Little point having multiple buses run parallel when they could run together on one corridor.

2. More cross town services. This means Cultural Centre terminators should be banned.

3. Increase the frequency, this means more BUZ services. Inala BUZ should be on the cards.
4. Bus lanes on Captain Cook Bridge and Coro drive

5. Shift some more routes to the Expressway, for the whole day.

I'd agree with 3, 4 and 5.  But 2 would reduce reliability.  There are rumors of the 375 being split for this reason.  Near-side extensions might make some sense though.

1: I'm not really sure what you are thinking of here.  Combining 370 & 333 perhaps?

[Jon Bryant]

There are just too many bus routes and buses in Brisbane

1. Cut the number of routes down, with the freed up buses going to increase the frequency. Little point having multiple buses run parallel when they could run together on one corridor.

2. More cross town services. This means Cultural Centre terminators should be banned.

3. Increase the frequency, this means more BUZ services. Inala BUZ should be on the cards.
4. Bus lanes on Captain Cook Bridge and Coro drive

5. Shift some more routes to the Expressway, for the whole day.

I'd agree with 3, 4 and 5.  But 2 would reduce reliability.  There are rumors of the 375 being split for this reason.  Near-side extensions might make some sense though.

I agree with all 6 points but Point 2 is equally important.  The cross town services are a must as 80% of trips are around our City not through it.  If the issue is reliabaility (not arging that it is not an issue to solve) then what can we do to fix reliabaility.  Giving the buses their own dedicated route/lane removes the "stuck in congestion problem" and makes them more efficient time wise, prepay, and maybe a controversal suggestion but only have stops with Go card machines/better shelter, etc every 800 meters (or associated with the commercial centres along a given route to allow multiple purpose trips).  Sure people have to walk but the bus does not have to stop and start all the time...as a passenger it drives me made that they stops every 200m.  Surely people can ealk a little further than that.  Other thoughts/ideas?

[stephenk]

  The cross town services are a must as 80% of trips are around our City not through it. 

Can you quote the source of that figure?
Is the figure overall, peak, or off-peak?
Does a 5 minute walk to the shop to get the morning paper count as a non-CBD journey?

[somebody]

Jonno, are you thinking of the BCC estimates that 80% of trips through the CBD are cross CBD trips?  (And hence, we need the Clem 7)

[#Metro]

This might give a little more detail, though not quite enough for my likes....

A congestion tax for motorists driving through Brisbane's CBD will not be viable for at least 20 years, when new road projects will offer free alternative routes around the city.

Lord Mayor Campbell Newman yesterday said 40 per cent of Brisbane traffic currently travelled through the city's heart, making a congestion tax far too expensive.

So the other ~60% travels around it- presumably on the bypasses/riverside expressway...

Currently, Brisbane's road network forces motorists and freight vehicles into inner-city suburbs, so much so that almost two-thirds of traffic in these suburbs is actually travelling to destinations outside the CBD.

2/3 is about ~ 66% so that is consistent...

http://bi.mipo.jsadigital.com.au/Major_Infrastructure_Projects_Office/Transport_projects/TransApex/Brisbanes_transport_challenge.aspx

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/congestion-tax-not-viable-in-brisbane-20091016-h0uw.html

Campbell Newman's solution isn't tolling- well it is sort of...
Its TransApex. (or the "Triangle of Congestion" as I like to call it).


This image is linked and reproduced here for the purposes of research, study, criticism and review.
Source: http://bi.mipo.jsadigital.com.au/MIPO/Transport_projects/TransApex.aspx

[Jon Bryant]

Yer it was the 2/3 of trips are through trips used to justify the Clem 7.  The 80% is the number of trips by car.  Both still very large numbers.  Mind you this does not include all the trips along the Gateway, Ipswich to Beenleigh, etc.  Our whole trsnaport system is Brisbane CBD focused yet our regiona is slowly becoming less so.

[O_128]

The east west link would make perfect sense to build as or incorporate a rail line into it. The trips alone to UQ would justify it

[#Metro]

Not sure if this was a bridge or a tunnel or a combination of both; but yes, you could get them to do the tunnel up to West End, and then diverge from the road tunnel. Though we have to see if the gradients permit that.

Co-construction should save money...

Beware: The triangle of congestion

[somebody]

One other thing:
34: The 412 has an awful stop location in the CBD.  Shouldn't it stop at Adelaide St stop 40 like the 411.  While it only shares 2 stops after Toowong, and a third stop is near, that's a much better location for the stop.  There doesn't seem to be any good reason why northern St Lucia residents should have to deal with such a poor city stop location.  Although if point 3 is completely addressed, this would be fixed with that.

[dwb]

wow, and I thought I was a bus nerd!

Just one point about Roma St to Pa.... wouldn't you get the train? It's only 11 minutes

Will post more points later...



As an aside, feel like editing your post so that there is a blank return after each idea, would be much easier to read!

[somebody]

wow, and I thought I was a bus nerd!

Just one point about Roma St to Pa.... wouldn't you get the train? It's only 11 minutes

The train isn't as handy to the hospital as the busway station.

[somebody]

Regarding the pre paid, the P216, P221, P339 would also not have a non pre paid alternative.

I would also add that having two outbound stops on Brunswick St outside Fortitude Valley station is dumb. Half of the buses go from one stop, and half from the other. If you are at the wrong stop, you won't get to the bus at the other stop by the time it departs. Annoying!

Just looked up some info on this one, because it was exactly the sort of issue I didn't want to omit.  Are you thinking of the 370, 375, 379 which stop at Valleystop 211, and the 353/346 which stop at Valleystop 212.  I presume their on either side of the pedestrian crossing there.  I would have thought you'd be able to get between these stops in time, perhaps with a slight jog.  Is that the issue you are talking about?

EDIT: Just remembered the other thing I wanted to raise:
Connecting William St & the Victoria bridge busway adds a cycle to the lights at the intersection of the Victoria Bridge, North Quay, William St and the Queen St bus station.

[stephenk]

Regarding the pre paid, the P216, P221, P335 would also not have a non pre paid alternative.

I would also add that having two outbound stops on Brunswick St outside Fortitude Valley station is dumb. Half of the buses go from one stop, and half from the other. If you are at the wrong stop, you won't get to the bus at the other stop by the time it departs. Annoying!

Just looked up some info on this one, because it was exactly the sort of issue I didn't want to omit.  Are you thinking of the 370, 375, 379 which stop at Valleystop 211, and the 353/346 which stop at Valleystop 212.  I presume their on either side of the pedestrian crossing there.  I would have thought you'd be able to get between these stops in time, perhaps with a slight jog.  Is that the issue you are talking about?

That's the one. I think a few more buses also go from 212. Passengers should not have to jog approx. 70m between bus stops to catch the first available bus. As few people wait at stop 212, the dwell time often too short (or none existent) for passengers to get from 211 to 212.

[somebody]

Another issue would be the lack of maps in the CBD to show where buses leave from to get to any given location.  Sydney has this in a few places, but they could improve too.  At the moment, if you don't know it, you virtually have to do a tour of every bus stop to find where the location is.

[dwb]

Maps at stops, mapping on the net and the website are major issues.

Realtime is a big issue but one they are well aware of.

My other major bug bear is community engagement. They run a public service, they should be doing it and they should be doing it publicly in an open and transparent manner. Current closed door consultation is not sufficient nor democratic.

In relation to buses specifically, I'm going to think local here, I think the 374 should be run via the INB terminating at KGS using the same stop as 385. 345 should be moved to a different stop. 66 and 111 should use the same stop at KGS to allow for this. 374 is currently underused and consumers CLEARLY prefer 385.

[dwb]

A couple of other points:

...as a passenger it drives me made that they stops every 200m.  Surely people can ealk a little further than that.  Other thoughts/ideas?

I tend to agree with this and I'm sure lots of Ashgrove passengers would too.... is there no BUZ there or am I getting confused?  HOWEVER, what you need to keep in mind is that lots of people have already walked really far to get to that stop, and particularly for elderly people not having a local stop is an issue. Having said that (yes I realise I'm qualifying my qualifier), I've noticed many people give up on their local and walk the extra distance to get the BUZ.

In relation to point 5.... sort of backs up my previous post about 374/385.

In relation to point 17, generally I think they need to do a better job of route info. I've been many locations where the bus tells you the entire route both at the stop and in the front window (not at the top but on the gutter side of the windscreen - possible visibility issues here and trouble with them using one bus for many routes, however they seem to get around this in plenty of places overseas. Can post a picture from Rio if it helps. Also they seem to be cramming in too much text on the new displays on BT buses. I have 20/20 vision, but sometimes have trouble reading them as the text is so small so the rest of the population must be struggling.

In relation to point 31 I tend to agree the Ivory st tunnel may be an advantageous change for all 199/196/197 permanently once Glider is launched. HOWEVER, it is important to note, that services SHOULD service CENTRES.... not bypass them just to get faster as overall it reduces the flexibility of the network. They would also need to review the actual bus stop closest to the centre of the valley if they did that. Currently they're a bit far apart and many passengers get confused when the bus suddenly isn't driving toward the valley. I think in the long term there really needs to be full bus priority through the valley, perhaps two way on Ann St with traffic on Wickham (lol although the likelihood of that is ZERO).

Also, keep in mind BT is a major player here they don't just do as TL ask, so I'm thinking it would be naive to write to TL thinking as such.

[somebody]

In relation to buses specifically, I'm going to think local here, I think the 374 should be run via the INB terminating at KGS using the same stop as 385. 345 should be moved to a different stop. 66 and 111 should use the same stop at KGS to allow for this. 374 is currently underused and consumers CLEARLY prefer 385.

I've addressed the 374 on the inbound by sending it to QSBS B.  On the outbound, I agree it would be a nice to have for it to run from KGSBS, but I think runs like the 390 and 325 are a bigger priority.  Currently, headways at the underground stops are no tighter than 5 mins anywhere I am aware of.  This is largely due to the lack of provision for a stop being occupied when the next service arrives. Thus, having the 66/111/222 all using a single stop would be too much.  Even if you moved the 222 to the 443 stop, that would be 18/hour, but staggered so the timetabled gaps would be only 2.5mins in some cases.  Too tight for reliability.

[dwb]

Why not send the 325 via RCWH just like the 335 and increase service level on 345?

374 would not be "addressed" at all by sending it to the QSBS. It has to serve the same stop as the 385 in and outbound otherwise there is no point and it will remain a useless route. In that case they'd be better off just adding those buses to serve the 385.

However given the Lord Mayor's announcement last week that the 10 busiest routes are all full before they reach anywhere near town, perhaps a "short" form of route for all of these is warranted, 385 included, which is effectively the 374 I was suggesting. I've never seen crowds on the other platform for the 222 like the 385, 345 or 444 although perhaps I need to open my eyes.

I see little reason why any of the routes per se should have to always use the same stop at KGS.... perhaps in the morning and afternoon different services can be bundled given the differing nature of peak flows from either south, north or west.  There seems to be a major issue with running buses east as well, although there is no easy fix for the current arrangements down Turbot St or Ann+Adeliade

[somebody]

Why not send the 325 via RCWH just like the 335 and increase service level on 345?

You mean route the 325 via the Valley?  Maybe.

374 would not be "addressed" at all by sending it to the QSBS. It has to serve the same stop as the 385 in and outbound otherwise there is no point and it will remain a useless route. In that case they'd be better off just adding those buses to serve the 385.

I disagree.  QSBS is a more useful stop than KGSBS for most people on the inbound.  Your point only applies on the outbound.

I've never seen crowds on the other platform for the 222 like the 385, 345 or 444 although perhaps I need to open my eyes.

It's my point 33 above that the 222 is largely a useless route, especially on the outbound.

However given the Lord Mayor's announcement last week that the 10 busiest routes are all full before they reach anywhere near town, perhaps a "short" form of route for all of these is warranted, 385 included, which is effectively the 374 I was suggesting.

Maybe.  Would work OK  inbound, but outbound it would be less effective, as people who could use the short working would still use the longer route.

I see little reason why any of the routes per se should have to always use the same stop at KGS.... perhaps in the morning and afternoon different services can be bundled given the differing nature of peak flows from either south, north or west.  There seems to be a major issue with running buses east as well, although there is no easy fix for the current arrangements down Turbot St or Ann+Adeliade

Not actually sure what you are getting at here.

[dwb]

Quote from: dwb on March 15, 2010, 11:24:47 PM
However given the Lord Mayor's announcement last week that the 10 busiest routes are all full before they reach anywhere near town, perhaps a "short" form of route for all of these is warranted, 385 included, which is effectively the 374 I was suggesting.
Maybe.  Would work OK  inbound, but outbound it would be less effective, as people who could use the short working would still use the longer route.

Yes in the afternoon some people would still use the long route, but if they stopped at the same stop and both had high frequencies you'd find that people would to a high level sort themselves out. It would at least be an improvement on now.

Quote from: dwb on March 15, 2010, 11:24:47 PM
I see little reason why any of the routes per se should have to always use the same stop at KGS.... perhaps in the morning and afternoon different services can be bundled given the differing nature of peak flows from either south, north or west.  There seems to be a major issue with running buses east as well, although there is no easy fix for the current arrangements down Turbot St or Ann+Adeliade
Not actually sure what you are getting at here.

What I mean is that I agree with the TL philosophy that buses should stop at the same place on both sides of the road (ie in both directions on a route). Therefore I think the 374 could not terminate at QSBS skipping KGS inbound and then skip QSBS and load at KGS on the outbound. HOWEVER I don't see why this should mean that the routes using KGS should necessarily stop at the same STOP all day, perhaps they can use different stops along the same PLATFORM. IMHO this could help spread the differing peak demands along the stops at KGS station, as all stops on the one platform are easily connected (unlike QSBS where it would be much more confusing and harder to implement).

ie, The 385, 345 and 374 could all be combined outbound in the morning at the one stop, but in the afternoon they would need to be partially split, cos there would be too many buses and passengers.

Make sense now?

[somebody]

Yep, I agree that the stops should be symmetrical as much as possible.  However, it's often not possible.  Look at Elizabeth St/Ann St routes such as 470/475/476.  If it's acceptable for them, why not for routes with underground stops?  Real problem is the trouble finding where a stop is to get to a given location.

Your point about stopping on different stops on the same platform only makes sense for the Cultural Centre bound routes, not in the other direction.

[somebody]

I think the evaluation and appraisal of the network should be done by an external and independent auditor/engineering firm rather than translink.

This independent, contracted auditor would collect the data, make up their own measures of performance (that will get rid of the spin statistics- like "on time performance" excluding all non-peak hour services) and find problems and suggest ways to fix them.

Didn't respond to this before, but I think this would be the exact wrong thing to do.  Just get on and fix the problems.  No need to engage an external organisation to review what has been done when you have already identified numerous problems with the network.  Once you have made the network as good as you are able, or at least have your own plan, an external review may be of benefit.  Mostly though, it would just add to the paralysis that Translink generally exhibit.

[somebody]

That's the one. I think a few more buses also go from 212.

Yes, the 334 and 335 also leave from 212.  Thank you.  P339 too, but that's not important for our counter peak purposes.

One thing I did leave out is the 330 and 340 buses don't service Windsor Rail.  I think there's a fair argument for them to serve this stop to allow connectivity between these routes and the Ferny Grove line.  It would be a bit annoying to go to change at Roma St when you should be able to change at Windsor.

[somebody]

374 is currently underused and consumers CLEARLY prefer 385.

Continuing on this discussion, I think heading inbound that's because the P374 accesses the City in such an awful way, heading outbound it's not quite as bad, and if your stop is one which is missed by the 385, the 375/P374 are moderately attractive.  Perhaps the P374 has such a bad name because of it's inbound crapulence that people are reluctant to use it on the outbound.  I would wonder if for these routes, the 379, 380 and 381 it wouldn't be faster to turn right at Turbot St and enter the busway, leaving at Skew St?  That would also give a common stop at Roma St station with the 385 so possibly take some loadings off it in that way.  The main problem with this is it would still be slower than the 385, but I would suggest that maybe it could make up for it by being high frequency?  If the P374s which leave Adelaide St stop 42 at 4:30pm, 4:40pm, 4:50pm, 5:00pm, 5:10pm, 5:20pm, 5:30pm all left 2 minutes earlier there would be a 5 minute service from this stop to Paddington.  Could be enough to discourage the Paddington people from crowding the 385.

For the 470, 475 and 476 westbound they are already running along Ann St so could simply turn right at Roma St although that would mean they couldn't service the stops on George St, and this affects the 3xx buses above too.  If all these things were done you could get rid of the outbound stops on Roma St not counting Roma St busway station.  One stop could only be a positive thing, and I think capacity is sufficient.

I also wonder about loading of the 382/383?  Does the same thing apply, that users clearly prefer the 385 to those routes?

[somebody]

There are just too many bus routes and buses in Brisbane

1. Cut the number of routes down, with the freed up buses going to increase the frequency. Little point having multiple buses run parallel when they could run together on one corridor.

I think I understand a bit of what you are getting at here now.  The 200 corridor has too many routes by at least one.  While I can allow keeping the 200 full time service, the P201 fast bus from Carindale Heights, the P206 City Precincts and one short working, two (P207 & P222) is definitely too much.  Also, the outbound P207 stops at all the same stops as the P206, with the exception of its origin.

For The Gap, if the 385 looped around via Settlement Rd to Hilder Rd then on to Waterworks/Brisbane Forest Park you could then abolish the 380 and 382.  It would be slower for only a small number of people.  You could also BUZ the 381 with the frequency gained.

457/458/459 is one too many City Precincts for Jindalee & Riverhills

Some say the Mains Rd corridor needs consolidation too, but I'm not so sure as at least all of those routes are a more than a bit different to each other.  I can think of a few problems with the 13x though.

EDIT: I'm going to post my thoughts on the 13x corridor, just to get them off my chest.  The P129/130/136 would be better off following Hellawell Rd like the 131/132.  This would abolish the need for the 132 and speed up the other routes.  Possibly use Jackson Rd outbound.  Seems that the 131 would be better to stick to Algester Rd rather than use Ridgewood Rd too.  This would also make then numbering for P137/139 more correctly 14x.  Then have the 150 and P151 stick to Gowan Rd with a terminus near "Waterstone" and truncate the 130 at the current P129/131 terminus seems to make sense too.  I guess no longer serving the "Calamvale" stop except with the 153 would be a disadvantage.  Current 130 routing seems to be because the 130 was the first BUZ.  Also, the 150 routing appears to be based on the lack of a 140 BUZ.

And also making the Gold Coast trains serve Altandi rather than Coopers Plains.

There.  I've proven that I am lord of the bus geeks!

[somebody]

374 would not be "addressed" at all by sending it to the QSBS. It has to serve the same stop as the 385 in and outbound otherwise there is no point and it will remain a useless route. In that case they'd be better off just adding those buses to serve the 385.

I think this argument is what will bring many of my proposals undone.  I'd have to say that I don't think it's valid at all though.  For example, the 4xx AM peak expresses and 41x full time routes service the Herschel St stop inbound, in spite of there being no equivalent alternative stop on the outbound.  Also, if you apply it without any exceptions, you can't have the AM peak inbound 4xx expresses entering the busway at Skew St unless they either non-stop Roma St station or service that station on the outbound.  Both of these options are unpleasant.  So while I would like every underground stop to have unlimited capacity, you have to make the best you can with what you have.  This is not done by religious adherance to rules such as "It has to serve the same stop as the 385 in and outbound".  Sorry, but that's the way I see it.  I wish I addressed this argument properly before.  As I've said before, the real issue is the difficulty in locating where in the city the stop for your bus is.

For the record, there are several rockets which currently use Elizabeth St inbound and QSBS outbound.  I don't see anything wrong with this, and in fact, I think it is far better than giving the rocket a street stop.  This co-locates the stop for the rocket for a given corridor with the full time service for that corridor.  Seems pretty good to me.  Some particular examples are the P179 rocket which uses QSBS C1, with the 180, and the 171/P176 rockets which combine with the 170 at QSBS C2.  The P179, 171, P176 all use Elizabeth St on the inbound.  I would presume that the 181 would also use QSBS C1 if there were enough room; it's a shame.

One other suggestion: Why not use Charlotte St for many more services?  This would be a pretty good alternative to Adelaide St for Captain Cook Bridge services, and I'm thinking in particular of the 13x/14x/15x which I've said should basically all use that rather than go via South Bank.  I'd also include the 555 in this.  I'm unsure if there would be enough room on Edward St between Elizabeth and Charlotte for such a terminus, so if Creek St is required, you could loop around Adelaide St/Edward St/Charlotte St.  While Charlotte St is a bit less convenient than Adelaide St as a pedestrian, that is countered to some degree by the fact that once you are on the bus you won't encounter as many lights to get out of the city.