Proposition: Merge 66+109 and adopt CityGlider style operation

[dwb]

Proposition: merge routes 66 and the 109 and service with dedicated buses under a similar style of CityGlider operation (ie all-doors-boarding, full wrap, entirely pre-paid, very-high-frequency).

I'd suggest two amendments to fleet:
1) double the width of the back door - to address current weakness in Glider fleet that two passengers abreast cannot board/deboard
2) remove some seating in the front half of the bus and install lean bars and more hand holds.

The route would be: UQ lakes - Boggo Rd - PAH - Mater - South Bank - Cultural - KGS - Roma St - Normanby - QUT KG - RCH - RBWH.

The route would run =/greater than BUZ hours of operation... ie 630am - 1130pm (ie no last bus at 915pm on a weeknight!)

[dwb]

Oh, and maybe it could be run by someone other than BT?
But that's a bit controversial!!

[somebody]

That's something this board has been banging on about since I joined a year ago or so.

The main problems are:
1) A reduction in service to the Gabba
2) Uselessly running around from Roma St-RB&WH after 9pm and on weekends

If it were called a BUZ, then some weasel words would have to be used unless you think they should throw good money away on point 2.  I'd prefer it just isn't called a BUZ.

Personally, I would have no problem with the Roma St-UQ Lakes part being given a BUZ type service (which is actually 6am-11pm), but I think the bit north of there is totally unnecessary.

I've posted before that the solution for point 1 is extending Cultural Centre terminators there.

Oh, and maybe it could be run by someone other than BT?
But that's a bit controversial!!

I don't care who operates it, but BT seems to be the most reasonable operator.  Do the other operators have any depots nearby, for example?

[dwb]

Yep I know, I've been waiting for Glider to be launched for proof of concept before extending this style of operation to the 66/109 idea.

I don't understand why you think running a service north of Roma St after 9pm is unnecessary?

[ozbob]

--> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2538.msg12418#msg12418

[#Metro]

Add exclusive use or arctic buses to that list.

Increasing the frequency of 109 + 66 could well put it in the league of 199.
Not sure of the figures of how many use 109 and 66 per year though.

Don't worry about woollongabba. There are heaps of buses to Wooloongabba, including rockets and in a few years, a train station as well.

[ozbob]

The 66 is very heavy loading particularly when QUT semesters are on of course, but now that they are going to Herston better for all.

[dwb]

The 66 is very heavy loading particularly when QUT semesters are on

This is why all door and wide door loading is so incredibly important!

The current artics have very narrow aisles and take FOREVER to load at KG/UQ and uneven passenger distribution given the same fact (ie people find it hard to get off so they don't squeeze down the back).

Increasing the frequency of 109 + 66 could well put it in the league of 199.

Surely it would blow it out of the water?!

[somebody]

I don't understand why you think running a service north of Roma St after 9pm is unnecessary?

Really?  The 330/333/340 already serve that with a minimum of 15 minute frequency until after 11pm, and mostly better frequency than that.

[ButFli]

Can't believe I didn't think about this before. The problem with running through routes is over-crowding in CBD. Some people from one side of the route (say, QUT KG) want to travel all the way to the far side of the CBD (say, Cultural Centre). Some people heading to the other side of route (say, UQ SL) want to catch the bus from the far side of the CBD (say, Roma St). Loading through the centre section is out-of-control because passengers from both sides of the route are competing for space. It happens on the 199 all the time. So full it's refusing passengers between the Valley and Cultural Centre but no standing passengers outside of that.

Also I've been having a think about what to do with the Gabba if this crazy 66+199 goes ahead or even if it doesn't. Run a 199 style service from Paddington to some place in the Kangaroo Point/East Brisbane area via Gabba Busway. KP/EB is crying out for a frequent and reliable bus service. It's such a shame that an area so close to the CBD is such a PT blackhole.

[stephenk]

full wrap,

Why do we need a full wrap. I would actually like to be able to see out of the windows!

AVVMs should be installed at all busway stations served by pre-paid only services. AFAIK, RCH Herston and Normanby do not yet have them.

[stephenk]

Add exclusive use or arctic buses to that list.

Increasing the frequency of 109 + 66 could well put it in the league of 199.
Not sure of the figures of how many use 109 and 66 per year though.

Don't worry about woollongabba. There are heaps of buses to Wooloongabba, including rockets and in a few years, a train station as well.

I'm sure if you lived in Woolloongabba you would have a different opinion. The train station there is still more than a few years away.

[somebody]

Still sounds like a really good idea to me.

And your comments add to my thoughts that the 199 would be better off routing via Ivory St full time.

Heading south or north on a 66+109, quite a number would be getting off at Roma St while others are getting on, for example.

It's still a disappointment to me that the suggestion of putting out of service buses into revenue service on the counter peak run from RB&WH & Roma St was never put forward.

full wrap,

Why do we need a full wrap. I would actually like to be able to see out of the windows!

AVVMs should be installed at all busway stations served by pre-paid only services. AFAIK, RCH Herston and Normanby do not yet have them.

That's inconsistent with other pre-paid services though.  For examply the P157 which doesn't even stop on the busway except at QSBS.  Why should the lack of AVVMs prevent the pre-paid?

Not that I'm opposed to having them.  Also QSBS doesn't have them either as far as I am aware.

Don't worry about woollongabba. There are heaps of buses to Wooloongabba, including rockets and in a few years, a train station as well.

Many of those rockets either don't pass through the station or don't stop there.  E.g. 201/206/207/222/211 don't serve the Gabba.

We need to get rid of the idea that the runs to the Gabba are allowed to use Adelaide St.  Should be QSBS.

[dwb]

Why do we need a full wrap. I would actually like to be able to see out of the windows!
AVVMs should be installed at all busway stations served by pre-paid only services. AFAIK, RCH Herston and Normanby do not yet have them.

I find the full wrap better than the partial wrap and haven't really had issues looking out of Glider.

The full wrap does a good job of standing out from the rest of the fleet and this is important especially given the different operating approach with back doors as suggested.

I'm not set on this, but I would like to see some separation from the rest of the fleet - it would then also offer (like Glider) the opportunity to use the route independently as proof of concept for when they roll out realtime. Personally I think they should nail it on one route before rolling out to the entire network

[Golliwog]

I'm opposed to having buses in permanent markings for different routes. Right now its just the city glider and city loops, but say you did it for each subset, say gave 100's one colour 200's another, etc. What happens then if perhaps all the Cityglider buses simultaneously brokedown? You could still run the service, but many would be confused. Whats wrong with just keeping them all the same?

[dwb]

The two different styles of operation is the issue!

And given that the BT fleet average age has dropped from its legal upper limit of 13yrs a few years ago to something like 4yrs, the probability of all buses breaking down at once is not such an issue as it used to be.

When I was in Rio they have heaps of different companies operating different routes all over the place, but with their own fleets and drivers and all that. It means that for instance you can add extra hard printed material on/in the bus, for example in Rio they had a panel to the bottom left of the drivers window (well bottom right but you get the point) that named all the major streets the route took. It was the same in Santiago as well and it is a fantastic piece of extra information.

In the case of the proposed route it could list each of the stations serviced for instance. It would also force the operator (BT or other) not to be tempted to shift these buses to other routes as they're clearly marked up for this one route.

And, I'm not suggesting it for all routes, I'm suggesting it for particular "case study" routes such as Glider and this 109/66 proposition.

[somebody]

I don't understand why you think running a service north of Roma St after 9pm is unnecessary?

Really?  The 330/333/340 already serve that with a minimum of 15 minute frequency until after 11pm, and mostly better frequency than that.

Why do you say a 66+109 service north of Roma St is necessary after 9pm?

[Golliwog]

I don't understand why you think running a service north of Roma St after 9pm is unnecessary?

Really?  The 330/333/340 already serve that with a minimum of 15 minute frequency until after 11pm, and mostly better frequency than that.

Why do you say a 66+109 service north of Roma St is necessary after 9pm?

Ease of access, so you don't have to change buses. Plus if the buses are going to run that late, I think its silly to decide to shorten the route just because there are other buses doing the same route.

[somebody]

Ease of access, so you don't have to change buses.

It would be a pretty odd journey that is a through journey on this route.  Nearly all journeys will involve an interchange somewhere.

[dwb]

I don't feel that I should need to go through all the positive reasons in this forum, reading that statement makes me think "why should we provide any PT?".

Because it is the inner city and there are heaps of non 9-5 drivers on this route (driver = location not someone in a car).

Besides, from Roma St to RBWH probably only adds on about 20mins or less anyway.

[somebody]

I don't feel that I should need to go through all the positive reasons in this forum, reading that statement makes me think "why should we provide any PT?".

Huh?

So you feel we should run PT at levels far beyond the demand when the frequency is already reasonably good?

[Golliwog]

reasonably good

But why should we settle for that when we could have excellent? I know theres almost certainly more pressing route frequency fixes, but if you're going to combine the routes why would you shorten the route or reduce the frequency later at night just because theres already another bus route running through one section of the combined route?

[cartoonbirdhaus]

reasonably good

But why should we settle for that when we could have excellent?

It's true that increasing services can "create" more demand - i.e. if you make it more attractive, more people will want to use it. We've seen that with the BUZ series. However, I'd imagine there'd be much less need for a night-time frequency higher than every 10 minutes, as fewer people would be out and about then anyway. That's still within the realm of turn-up-and-go service, and achievable with existing services.

But it could be good to have more routes through-routed along the busway, to simplify things: but only if it doesn't increase congestion. Whether or not the 109 is joined with the 66, it's high time they got rid of that ridiculous loop it has to do when heading outbound!

[somebody]

But why should we settle for that when we could have excellent? I know theres almost certainly more pressing route frequency fixes

You have answered your own question.

There is almost zero advantage to what you are suggesting.  Shouldn't the available cash be spent where there is an advantage?

[#Metro]

What about 470 + 402 and adopt cityglider operation?
A bit more out there but there are a few developments happening in Milton now, and the density is probably the highest you would get anywhere in Brisbane.

Late night and weekends I can see the points being raised make sense.
Bigger buses and bigger UQ Lakes needed. But even if they put bus stops on the opposite side, how long would it take until that too needed a capacity increase again?

[somebody]

What about 470 + 402 and adopt cityglider operation?

I would can the 470.  Route the Indooroopilly buses via Milton Rd, and the CityGlider covers the route on the Newstead side.

416 can stay.

[#Metro]

CityGlider only runs one way in James Street New Farm.
I was thinking [470 + 402] beginning at the Brisbane Powerhouse, down Lamington St, James St, Ann St, Roma St, to Toowong and St Lucia.

[somebody]

CityGlider only runs one way in James Street New Farm.
I was thinking [470 + 402] beginning at the Brisbane Powerhouse, down Lamington St, James St, Ann St, Roma St, to Toowong and St Lucia.

That may be, but Wickham St/Skyring Tce aren't too far away.  If you can't walk it, stay on the bus.

I'm afraid I'm going to call 470+402, and 66+109 on weekends and after 9pm ones for the bus spotter fantasy file.

But then, continuing the 192 post CityGlider ought to be in the bus spotter fantasy file too.  Simply extend a few 199s to UQ Lakes to compensate for the loss of that part.

[#Metro]

There should be something that goes direct to the Brisbane Powerhouse and down James St (the whole way) as it is a main activity centre.  

192 should be kept as is. CityGlider runs express so another bus is needed to stop at the "all stops" stops.
I might be swayed if CityGlider became all stops.


NB: I personally don't use the words "Fantasy File", except in sentences such as this one.  

[somebody]

192 should be kept as is. CityGlider runs express so another bus is needed to stop at the "all stops" stops.
I might be swayed if CityGlider became all stops.

There's definitely a case for the CityGlider being all stops.  I'm not really sure it's limited stops.

I was feeling stephenk's frustration at suggestions of 66+109 on weekends and after 9pm, when the current 66 doesn't even run.

[#Metro]

I'm not really sure it's limited stops.

Its definitely limited stops.
I learned the hard way- It left me behind at the bus stop!  

I was feeling stephenk's frustration at suggestions of 66+109 on weekends and after 9pm, when the current 66 doesn't even run.

Just lower the frequency as required on the weekends. The cross town connection to UQ is still valuable.
I guess the reduction means cityglider wrap wont go ahead because BUZ and CityGlider are "no compromise" with relation to frequency.

[somebody]

I'm not really sure it's limited stops.

Its definitely limited stops.
I learned the hard way- It left me behind at the bus stop! 

Oops, I meant to say:
I'm not really sure why it's limited stops.

[dwb]

I agree with the limited stops concept for the Glider.  I wish more services around the place were limited stops too. And I can tell you lots of people love limited stops services, I can see it in the pattern that people catch my local services. They will watch several all stops services pass by waiting for an express service because they hate the start-stop-start.

In my proposal I started from a values-based approach, where members of the community value being able to travel outside of peak hours. I envision an PT system that supports uses other than commuting and that allows people to own 1 car/household or even none, in effect relying on PT, that includes travel after 9pm at night.  This is not a strange concept. This is not a bad concept. This is not an unpopular concept overseas.

I don't think (and nor do I think I proposed) that we should run wasteful and inefficient services. I do propose running a key inner city route for hours extended beyond the traditional commuter focus for a couple of reasons. Its been highly successful on the BUZES. The route has significant drivers that have non-standard hours such as the CBD, UQ, QUT and the hospital. In future, ULDA land uses at Bowen Hills are likely to increase patronage to this area.  Further, the extension from Roma St to RBWH is so minor in length/time yet would significantly increase convenience for cross town customers.

Somebody agrees that the proposed route would likely be well patronised in the period after 9pm at least on the southern end, and suggest terminating it at/after Roma St. But where should the service turn around early? The only turn arounds are at QUTKG (two short stops short of RBWH) or immediately after KGS (but short of Roma). And doing so would only save about 20mins. If the service were running something like a 20min frequency after 9pm, to 11pm, this is only 6 services, so the additional cost would be minimal as you'd probably be able to run that frequency with like 3 buses... probably the same requirement as cutting it short at Roma St.  Passengers would rightly wonder why an evening service was terminating early if you had two patterns.

PT will not hit the big time until it means that people can dump their cars and rely on it, in combination with things like night services, bicycles, carshare and taxis.

[longboi]

I think once the Bowen Hills and Gabba ULDA zones start to take off it would be completely justified to increase operating hours and introduce more CityGlider style cross-city routes. The inner 5km of the City would essentially be a 24 hour turn up and go transit zone - an area for anyone who wants to essentially live car free (Imagine Manhattan on a much smaller scale).

[#Metro]

I'd like to see 199 become 24 hour.

I don't agree with expressing the CityGlider.
I'm sure more people would catch it if it did all stops- then we could measure success by determining how many people caught the bus. The extra time added would be small and the distances are short.

199 has been a success and it isn't express (except for the really late at night runs via Ivory St)

[dwb]

199 has been a success and it isn't express

I'm sure the fact the 199 isn't express has suppressed demand and that it could (given the right balance) be MORE successful more express...

[somebody]

Somebody agrees that the proposed route would likely be well patronised in the period after 9pm

The reason here is that there is no reasonable alternative for the southern portion.  There's plenty of reasonable alternatives to the northern part.  The 66+109 could turn around in the Normanby bus parking as the 111 does.

I think the only advantage to what you are proposing is the consistency of it.

[Sir Loin]

For whats it's worth, yesterday I travelled by bus from RBWH to St Lucia. Left at 3pm and didn't arrive at St lucia until 4pm, so slow considering it's all on the busway!

Was delays at:
-RBWH (onto the 66)- continue stream of people running up the steps yelling "pleaseeeeee waittttt", most of whom had to fish go cards out of handbags or pay for a ticket.

QUT KG- The amount of school kids waiting on the platform was astonishing, takes forever to jam them all on, and it feels like you're in a chinese laundry. Left quite a few behind (school kids and Uni students/staff)

Paddington- One person who was sitting at the back corner of the bus  , gets off, has to push by everyone standing.

Roma and KGS- Most of the passengers get off, time ticks away.

Cultural Centre (off the 66 onto the 109)- Backlog of buses, had to wait for them to clear before being able to get off the 66. Backlog is ongoing, see my 109 about 8 minutes before I get on it. Lucky I spot it pull up into the end platform (nearest the bridge), about 10 other people don't and attempt to wave it down as it speeds off towards the bus way. Only 3 people are on at this stage.

South Brisbane-Huge backlog here, we stop well short of the station behind many other buses. Seriously wait for more 10 minutes, before pulling into the platform. Again school kids galore, fortunately few get on the 109.

Mater- Quick stop, again the platform is packed.

From there on- straight through fast.

Obviously the time of travel didn't help, but god it was a long trip.

I was only going to drop off some doc's at UQ so I was back down waiting for a bus about 4:20. Massive lines to get on any bus, the packed 109 left quite a few behind.
Then I had the pleasure of jumping on the packed cleveland train at park road , off at Morningside at 4:50.

Not the greatest two hours of my life.

[ozbob]

Yes, the capacity constraints are becoming very obvious. Something needs to be done to sort out the Cultural Centre.  Kick cars off Victoria bridge or get serious with the Adelaide St bridge

Rail needs a very serious ramp up.

[#Metro]

Some of the busway platforms may need lengthening if possible, to 72-75 meters.
Maybe some of the stops should be dedicated- buses starting with a 1 always use bay #1, buses with a 2 use bay #2 and so forth (but may be this is not practical?).

Agree that something needs to be done with the Cultural Centre and Melbourne St death trap.
Unless they are going to convert all the brand new buses to brand newer superbuses with 112 passenger capacity.