What are your transport priorities for 2011?

[ozbob]

What do you think are transport related priorities for 2011 and beyond?

Your priorities not what might be politically acceptable?

To kick it off ( I have excluded things already happening eg. MBRL, Springfield line itself, Ferny Grove duplication):

1.  Cross River Rail.

2.  Beerburrum to Landsborough duplication, with further passing loop improvements between Landsborough and Nambour.

3.  Stabling at Wulkaraka and Yandina.

4.  Progressive ramp up of a core out of peak 15 minute frequency on major suburban lines,  Sunshine Coast one hour out of peak to Nambour.  At least 4 daily services between Nambour and Gympie North.

5.  Triplication Petrie to Lawnton.

6.  Duplication of Cleveland line, Coomera to Helensvale.

7.  Stations at Ellen Grove and Springfield Lakes.

~

[colinw]

1. CRR.  The importance of this project cannot be overstated. Can it, and you may as well give up on rail in Brisbane.
2. Landsborough Duplication.  FIX THE SUNSHINE COAST LINE NOW!  Meanwhile, run maximum service that current infrastructure can cope with.
3. A genuine timetable rewrite & real consultation leading to even headways in peak and 15 minute frequency offpeak services wherever feasible with current infrastructure.
4. Timetable again ... fix Airtrain - sensible service frequencies and hours of operation.
5. Yet more timetable - buses this time: BUZify some more routes.
6. Bring forward Gold Coast Light rail stage 2 - Helensvale to Gold Coast Hospital.  Get the LRT connected to heavy rail from the outset, rather than opening as an isolated line.
7. Build Ellen Grove & Springfield Lakes from opening.
8. Doomben line duplication + part of Cleveland line part duplication. (Suggest a passing lane Thorneside - Wellington Pt would be a good starting point).  Eliminate practice of terminating some Cleveland trains at Bowen Hills - run 'em all through to Doomben and bring Doomben to equal service standard with rest of system.
9. Sandgate to Shorncliffe duplication.  Lets start progressively eliminating single track sections except for the Airport branch.
10. Coomera to Helensvale duplication - more elimination of single track.
11. Electrify the 4th line through Oxley & build the missing platform.  That bit of cost cutting was ridiculous!

Post CRR opening in 2016 ...

12. Complete the Cleveland line duplication.
13. Re-instate a service via Tennyson (& extend Tennyson station to 6 car length).
14. CAMCOS - get at least stage 1 to Caloundra underway. (Probably implies Trouts Rd corridor as well?)
15. Landsborough to Nambour duplication + Yandina stabling.
16. Track amplification beyond Darra toward Ipswich - note: go all the way, not just to Redbank!
17. Gold Coast heavy rail further south - at least Elanora if not Tugun or Coolangatta.
18. Get a start on rail to Browns Plains / Greenbank & Flagstone.
19. Plan something to serve the huge development at Yarrabilba.  Rebuild rail Bethania to Logan Village, or a busway on the old rail corridor.  Yarrabilba is the only one of the planned satellite cities that does not have a rail link planned, and yet it sits astride a disused rail corridor, plus Delfin is rapidly building a big Forest Lake style development in the Waterford area right next to the old line.  There's a couple of bits of poor alignment on this line around Waterford (although not as bad even as around Grovely on the FG line), but beyond Waterford it opens out to some nice long straights.  The 12km or so from Bethania to Logan Village would make a good extension to the system.
20. Off the wall suggestion - rebuild the former Wamuran branch through the centre of Caboolture to a big park & ride on the D'Aguilar Hwy at Caboolture West.  One intermediate station at Tullawong over the road from the high school.  Extend all Caboolture trains to the new D'Aguilar Park & Ride, thus terminating them clear of the main line.  That rail corridor through Caboolture is dead straight and bisects the town neatly before intersecting the D'Aguilar Hwy at the western end of town.  This will stop much park & ride traffic for Caboolture having to drive through the middle of town.

[aldonius]

Bus stuff:
Cross-Town routes in general -- GCL BUZification, stuff in http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5018.0, feeder bus improvement generally ([peak] frequency).

[#Metro]

Building things
1. Cross River Rail
2. Duplications on the Sunshine Coast
3. Construction of CAMCOS to Caloundra
4. Construction of bus interchange at Indooroopilly Rail

Timetabling things
1. 15 minute trains to all stations where it is possible now on current infrastructure
2. BUZifications: BUZ 450 BUZ 100, BUZ 599/598 [incremental upgrade], BUZ 196, BUZ 375,  (in that order, most important to least)
3. More cross town and orbital bus routes

Cutting things & Adjustments
1. Abolish route 88
2. Abolish route 393
3. Cut routes 209 and 169 on weekends
4. Reduce frequency of 199 slightly, from every 5 minutes to every 6 minutes. Get a bigger bus and put on route 199 to compensate.
5. Improve and re-route 104, cut Tennyson Train services
6. Cut loop of route 105 (replace with extended 196)
7. Introduce more handrails into QR Citytrains

Planning
1. Consider TOD opportunities for rail stations, particularly new ones
2. Consider level boarding for all to-be constructed rail stations
3. Re-introduce bus lanes on Coronation Drive
4. Study on signal priority and pre-emption in Brisbane
5. Release Jan Gehl's report that was done on Brisbane but not publicly released
6. Consider better designs for bus-rail, bus-ferry interchanges
7. Study into light rail for Brisbane
8. Consider how Indooroopilly bus interchange can be improved
9. Study into cordon toll options for Brisbane CBD downtown area only.
10. Consider future train design. 3 or 4 doors/carriage for QR CityTrains
11. Frequent network maps and information about TL network improvements
12. Investigate "frequent corridor" marketing for rail and bus routes

Miscellaneous
1. Increase fares (someone has to pay for all these improvements)
2. Look at getting tenants to move into the KGS busway shops. These have been empty for years now.
3. Abolish no drinking water on trains rule
4. More handrails on trains

[somebody]

1. Services
2. Services
3. Services

Specifically:
1. 15 minutes frequency to Manly, Kuraby, Ferny Grove, Shorncliffe and Petrie at least (don't know why you wouldn't go on to Caboolture).
2. 15 minutes to Airport + operating hours
3. BUZ 100, 110, 120, revised Cavendish Rd 180, 325, 330, 375.  (100/110 could use minor revisions too, 170 revisions with the 180 ones)
4. Fix up the Doomben line to allow 15 minute frequency
5. Fix ridiculous city stop locations
6. (390 + 397/398) combined for all stops BUZ as far as Mitchelton,
7. Centenary BUZ routes
8. 100 extension/reroute into Richlands
9. Full time 231/236 (Storey Bridge routing to Bulimba rather than via Cultural Centre).  Possibly BUZ these too.
10. Full time 15 minute frequency between 174/175, 380/381.  I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of.
11. Improved service along Sandgate Rd
12. Roma St-RB&WH counter peak service
13. 333+109
14. CRR1 - I suspect that price rises are being used to suppress demand and defer this.
15. Sunshine Coast line duplication.  North of Landsborough, it is much need of a realignment
16. Cleveland line duplication.  Perhaps Thorneside-WP wouldn't allow increased frequency, but would get operating margin.
17. Make the 393 useful again
18. Cull some useless services and increase frequency on other services e.g. 151.  Cut back 66.
19. Properly use INB (this should have been higher up)
20. Properly serve Parliament end of town

I've probably put in enough there.

[mufreight]

Realignment, duplication and passing lanes passing Beerburrum to Nambour NCL
Construct Ellen Grove station and extend line from Richlands to Ellen Grove
Cross River Rail
Kippa Ring Rail
Improve co-ordination between bus and rail
15 minute minimum off peak operating frequencies for all rail services, Nambour to Gold Coast and Ipswich.
Electrify Rosewood to Gatton/Helidon, new alignment and tunnel Grandchester to Laidley
Disband Translink with an office of Queensland Transport to become the co-ordinating authority and Queensland Rail to operate independently to minimum service standards set by the Minister.

[Jonno]

Ony 1. Develop a series of Transport Plans across the state that establish public/active transport and freight rail targets of 60-75%.  Unless this happens then all the other plan will be killed off by "road constrcution plans" attempting to build enough road space to maintain 85% road use!!!!!

[ButFli]

4. Reduce frequency of 199 slightly, from every 5 minutes to every 6 minutes. Get a bigger bus and put on route 199 to compensate.

NO NO NO. Not going to work. 199 at 5 minutes currently does not provide transport for all people who want to ride. People are having to wait half an hour for 5 or 6 buses to pass before they are allowed to board. We need more seats, not the same number with lower frequency. Bigger buses mean less reliable service. Give us more buses or give us light rail. 199 is one of the very few routes in Brisbane to turn a profit. Surely we should be expanding capacity to increase revenue? Do not punish a community that uses public transport en masse. We have set the example for the rest of Brisbane to follow.

My transport wish for 2011 is for an improvement to route 199 on weekends. People are being turned away from the 199 on Saturdays and Sundays during daylight hours. For a route that makes a profit this is not good enough. These are passengers who are waiting at the stop ready to pay their way but are unable to because the bus that should be on their route to pick them up has been put on some other route that loses money. I personally think that rate and tax payers should only be subsidising services up to a half hour frequency. Anything higher than that needs to be covered by passengers (by increasing fares if necessary).

[somebody]

We need more seats, not the same number with lower frequency.

I'm fairly sure that a bendy bus every 6 minutes would have more seats and more places than a standard bus every 5 minutes.

Having said that, I agree with you generally.  What is needed in peak is probably extra 195 trips with another route running express to Merthyr Rd/Brunswick St.  And a full time Ivory St routing for the 199.  That would be cheaper to operate than the current via Valley 199, and more attractive to pax.

[ozbob]

Folks who do not use 199 also are quite entitled to public transport, at a frequency that makes it attractive.  The 199 is popular as a consequence of the frequency.  If there are long waits at weekends then there is a need for more services for 199, not less on other routes IMHO.

For interest:

.... Experience and example throughout the world clearly indicate public transport activities
normally require some form of government support. While public transport activities
generally bear the full direct costs of service provision they do not usually fully capture
the extent of the benefits they create for their own passengers, users of other modes of
transport, and others in the community (such as reducing levels of congestion, pollution
and accidents as well as reducing the requirements for road infrastructure). In this respect,
it is important to recognise there are high levels of costs associated with the use of the
private motor vehicle (such as infrastructure, congestion, environmental pollution and
costs of accidents) which, to varying degrees, are not incorporated within the costs of the
motorist. To avoid or reduce the mis-allocation of economic resources, the options are to
either increase the cost to the private motorist to reflect these externalities, or support
public transport to a similar extent.

Government support is provided in a variety of forms, such as financial support for public
transport operations, provision of public transport infrastructure, direct regulatory support,
and indirect regulatory support such as travel demand management for private motor
vehicles, and for a variety of reasons, such as the provision of social justice, correction of
market failure, environmental sustainability, and long-term planning purposes. It is not
appropriate to consider the issue only from the perspective of economic efficiency ....

Where is this from?

--> A COMMUNITY SERVICE OBLIGATION FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND page ii

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/d3431519-5879-4ac6-9fbb-39b52e78c7d9/pdf_rpf_cso_framework_for_public_transport_in_seq.pdf

[#Metro]

Folks who do not use 199 also are quite entitled to public transport, at a frequency that makes it attractive.  The 199 is popular as a consequence of the frequency.  If there are long waits at weekends then there is a need for more services for 199, not less on other routes IMHO.

I agree, but for a different reason. People are reacting to what is seen and forgetting about what is not seen (extra money saved which can be used for new services, 2 buses an hour which can be put on another route, greater efficiency etc.).

Watch this:

Capacity of a standard bus = 62
Capacity of an bigger rigid bus = 98 (see reference 1)
5 minute frequency = 60 min / 5 min = 12 buses per hour
6 minute frequency = 60 min / 6 min = 10 buses per hour (save 2 bus runs)

Status Quo:
62 x 12 = 744 seats/hour/direction

Bigger bus option:
98 x 10 = 980 seats/hour/direction

Increase in seats: + 236 seats/hour/direction
Decrease in labour etc: Save 2 bus runs

Remember, this is what would occur if Light Rail were put in the corridor too- frequency would initially decrease. The frequency change is imperceptible, AND you increase the number of seats at the same time. It also will deal with relieving the very annoying bunching effects too. Whether LRT should go down the corridor or not, is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. There still needs to be something done about the situation NOW while we wait for other options.

(Oh, and some other lucky route can now have an extra 2 services an hour! If that route is a bus every half-hour route, then the 2 extra services would cut the waiting time for those users by a massive 15 minutes at a "cost" to 199 users of just 60 seconds)

It's called efficiency. There would be an overall net gain of passengers to the network overall, and more seats would be provided on 199 which would allow those passengers waiting at the bus stop to get on and pay more revenue, which would feed back into providing more services.  

Bus capacity
(1) http://btbuses.info/?Submit=fleetspecs&find=Scania%20K310UB6x2%20[Volgren]&searching=yes

[ButFli]

That's great except artics can't be used on the 199 because there are too many tight corners. I imagine the same would be true for the biggest of Brisbane's "superbuses". More passengers on fewer buses would also mean a longer journey time.

I understand that light rail would also suffer from these problems but I assume some of it could be made up by the traffic priority measures that are afforded to it.

[somebody]

That's great except artics can't be used on the 199 because there are too many tight corners. I imagine the same would be true for the biggest of Brisbane's "superbuses". More passengers on fewer buses would also mean a longer journey time.

I understand that light rail would also suffer from these problems but I assume some of it could be made up by the traffic priority measures that are afforded to it.

My understanding is that an artic can go anywhere a standard bus can go, but that is not true for a tri-axle (14.5m) bus.

I personally think that rate and tax payers should only be subsidising services up to a half hour frequency. Anything higher than that needs to be covered by passengers (by increasing fares if necessary).

I can't support this one!  Maybe if you are saying better than 15 minute frequency, but even then there is the indirect benefits which society derives from people using public transport.

[#Metro]

That's great except artics can't be used on the 199 because there are too many tight corners. I imagine the same would be true for the biggest of Brisbane's "superbuses". More passengers on fewer buses would also mean a longer journey time.

I understand that light rail would also suffer from these problems but I assume some of it could be made up by the traffic priority measures that are afforded to it.

Yes, the bus above is not an arctic. It's length is 14.50 meters vs the CityGlider bus which is 12.49 meters.
All door boarding could be introduced on 199, but is optional. If it works on the CityGlider, why not 199?
BCC also undertook works (turnaround, roundabout removal) to allow CityGlider on Hoogley St, so that should
help.

I'm sure there are solutions. Solutions will have to be found anyway if something as gigantic as LRT is going to
perform turns there.

I personally think that rate and tax payers should only be subsidising services up to a half hour frequency. Anything higher than that needs to be covered by passengers (by increasing fares if necessary).

IMHO the best public transport networks are also the ones that require the least subsidy because so many people are using them.
IMHO 50% seems like something to aim for.
They do so by finding small efficiencies and innovations (like TOD, like handrails in trains, like train layouts that accommodate more pax)
that can maximize service. Things like this allow frequencies on other routes to be improved and draw in the passengers, which improves the overall position of the network.

Sometimes something that looks like a cut can actually be an improvement, and sometimes something that looks like an expansion can be a very big harmful dis-improvement (i.e. Route 88). Judicious use of the scrapper is legitimate and indeed essential in any well run PT network IMHO.

[#Metro]

I can't support this one!  Maybe if you are saying better than 15 minute frequency, but even then there is the indirect benefits which society derives from people using public transport.

True, and I agree.
However, it should be possible to have both good PT and the indirect social benefits with lower levels of subsidy, eventually. The Hong Kong MTR rail network is running at ridiculous levels of profit, nobody there seems to think that they are getting lower social benefits from PT there. Other places different from Hong Kong also have farebox recoveries much higher than in Australia too.

People will catch PT and pay for it if they are given better quality network and services.
They will NOT pay for "rotten apples" services, even if they are free.

Maybe my list of priorities was not clear enough, I guess Jonno said it well, so I might re-phrase here:

Construct a core 15 minute frequent network over Brisbane and then SEQ.

Brisbane needs more BUZifications. Eventually IMHO more of these routes will require less subsidy (money saved, due to patronage increase) or even profits, which can be used to cross-subsidise more frequency improvements elsewhere.

Services in the off-peak and orbitals need to be dealt with. IMHO the home-work commute is already very well taken by PT, IMHO we need to see how patronage can be taken off the car in the off peak and also for non-CBD trips: in short, weaving a total network.

Core rail frequency of 15 minutes will be a key to this IMHO because it will unlock the network effect and also have BUZ level services where there are no BUZ services (the BUZ services are there to fill gaps in the rail network, or so we are told).

[somebody]

Yes, the bus above is not an arctic. It's length is 14.50 meters vs the CityGlider bus which is 12.49 meters.

As I posted above, these buses are less manevourable than an artic.

[ButFli]

That's great except artics can't be used on the 199 because there are too many tight corners. I imagine the same would be true for the biggest of Brisbane's "superbuses". More passengers on fewer buses would also mean a longer journey time.

I understand that light rail would also suffer from these problems but I assume some of it could be made up by the traffic priority measures that are afforded to it.

My understanding is that an artic can go anywhere a standard bus can go, but that is not true for a tri-axle (14.5m) bus.

While I accept that an artic might be more maneuverable than the superbuses, I would be extremely surprised to see an artic make the left hand turn from Ann St into Brunswick St without taking up multiple lanes on Ann St. I would also like to see an artic make it through that bizarre maze thing around the heritage listed building that goes from Brunswick St into the Ivory St tunnel.

But hey, this isn't a thread about the 199. Let's keep things on track and if anyone wants to talk 199 we can start a new thread.

[Emmie]

The original few posts covered a great many excellent ideas, agree, all good.

Minor (and cheap) additions:

Better signage, especially at bus-rail interchanges like Park/Boggo Rd, plus better directions on stations (to lifts, to toilets, etc).

A decent map of high frequency services across the network (RBOT has made suggestions for this already) which should be available ay every stop and on every bus and train

Improve connectivity between indooroopilly Station and Indooroopilly bus station, through improved signage and priority crossings.

Consolidate bus stops in the city, so that buses to associated destinations all leave from the same place (e.g. 109 and 412)

Introduce better signage on buses traversing CBD (e.g via ABCD St)

Make better use of Roma St bus-rail interchange by routing more buses through busway

Do something - anything - about Bowen Hills to make it viable for passenger transfers or terminations

[somebody]

Do something - anything - about Bowen Hills to make it viable for passenger transfers or terminations

Do you mean bus/rail transfers?  What buses run through there?  393, 301, 310, 315 OTOH.

[#Metro]

Do something - anything - about Bowen Hills to make it viable for passenger transfers or terminations

Hi Emmie!

Yes, I agree. Bowen Hills should be an interchange station, along with Eagle Junction.
Again, information provision and making it obvious.

I think that some bus stops could be 'dressed up' as interchange stops. Others will require buses to come closer to the station, so might need an interchange made for them. When you go to a rail station, you are just expected "to know" what buses go near it, which is ridiculous. There was a time I went to a station I had not been to before, no maps, no idea what buses went near it, no idea where the bus stop was. A classic situation would be at Windsor. Just down the road and around the corner, there are BUZzes going to Chermside, but I doubt anybody who uses that station would be aware of that.

On the scale of things, printing maps is pretty cheap. less than the cost to dress up one station I would think.

[BrizCommuter]

And a full time Ivory St routing for the 199. 

That would completely stuff up the popular interchange (despite it involving a 5 min walk) with Fortitude Valley station.

[SteelPan]

1. CRR Project
2. Continue pressure for proposed stage 2 Brisbane Underground
3. Expansion of BUZ Bus Networks and operation of (select) BUZ Networks 24/7
4. Investigation of more cross city bus routes - launch from 1 Jan 2012
5. Investigate frequency of many suburban bus routes - I know my local route is running to a timetable at least 12yrs old - goal new suburban timetables from say 1/1/2013.
6. Continue own lobbying for planning of a new Eastern Suburbs rail line - as STAGE 3 Brisbane Underground Project.
7. Committment to enhancements of North Coast Line and Gold Coast Line - ie, long-term push to Coolangatta.
8. Initiate something like a "Project 2012" - a plan to from say 1 Jan 2012 have most rail lines in Brisbane running at 15min frequency - with select lines moving to 24/7 operation (except of course for when maintenance issues arise) - obviously reduced frequency between say Midnight til 5am.  Lines proposed include Ipswich/GC/Beenleigh/S'Coast/Cleveland
9. Investigate including rail capacity in proposed Toowong to Everton Park "Route 20" tunnel.

[#Metro]

2011

If nothing else happens in 2011, I would be happy with just this:

1. 15 minute trains to all stations where it is possible now on current infrastructure
2. BUZifications: BUZ 450 BUZ 100, BUZ 599/598 [incremental upgrade, make the route more direct], BUZ 196, BUZ 375, BUZ 185  (in that order, most important to least)
3. More cross town and orbital bus routes
4. Frequent network marketing:  Frequent Corridor branding, maps at busway and rail stations, development of an "interchange stop" sign like we have signs for BUZ, rocket and GCL.

The bottom line is this: Develop the core frequent network and market it.
Service expansions and tweaking can be done relatively quickly and cheaply compared to some of the much larger projects in tow.

[somebody]

That would completely stuff up the popular interchange (despite it involving a 5 min walk) with Fortitude Valley station.

Notwithstanding this, I think it should still be done!

If you are heading from New Farm on the bus, it would turn what is now probably a 7 minute walk into a 9-10 minute walk.  If you want to head to new farm, what is now a 5 minute walk becomes a 10 minute walk.  If you can't manage that, interchanging at Central is relatively easy.  And there is also the 196 which I favour leaving in the Valley to cater for this.

I also eliminates the tendency of people to use the 199 for trips to the Valley, which crowds out people for New Farm.

BUZ 185 

Can't agree with this one.  185 isn't on an appropriate routing for BUZification.  Why would you go to Cavendish Rd & Holland Rd via Stanley Bridge???

Also, the 180 is a noted overcrowded route, why not BUZ that one, albeit with some modifications.

[#Metro]

I also eliminates the tendency of people to use the 199 for trips to the Valley, which crowds out people for New Farm.

I disagree, don't touch route 199!
If 196 were BUZzed, then maybe that could get the Ivory St routing. The combined frequencies of 199 + 196 would be very high, IMHO 196 should go via the tunnel.

Can't agree with this one.  185 isn't on an appropriate routing for BUZification.  Why would you go to Cavendish Rd & Holland Rd via Stanley Bridge???

Also, the 180 is a noted overcrowded route, why not BUZ that one, albeit with some modifications.

This one is open. Usually people suggest route changes before they are BUZzed. See the discussion about BUZ 450- the discussion around that is about higher frequency AND changes to the route to make it faster.

Down Stanley St
into Cavendish Road
through wishart (should this bit be altered?)

The 174/175 already covers the Logan road corridor with BUZ frequency.

[BrizCommuter]

That would completely stuff up the popular interchange (despite it involving a 5 min walk) with Fortitude Valley station.

Notwithstanding this, I think it should still be done!

If you are heading from New Farm on the bus, it would turn what is now probably a 7 minute walk into a 9-10 minute walk.  If you want to head to new farm, what is now a 5 minute walk becomes a 10 minute walk.  If you can't manage that, interchanging at Central is relatively easy.  And there is also the 196 which I favour leaving in the Valley to cater for this.

I also eliminates the tendency of people to use the 199 for trips to the Valley, which crowds out people for New Farm.

Have you considered that many people want to travel from New Farm to the Valley or vice versa? Your suggestion would add to the disfunction of Brisbane's public transport. If I had to interchange between train and bus via a 10 min walk, then I might as well drive from Chez BrizCommuter to New Farm instead.

[somebody]

I disagree, don't touch route 199!
If 196 were BUZzed, then maybe that could get the Ivory St routing. The combined frequencies of 199 + 196 would be very high, IMHO 196 should go via the tunnel.

Well, I would think that the lion's share of pax for the New Farm part of the 199 are heading to or through the city.  Do you think otherwise?  A lower number of people use the 196, so there would be a lower benefit to running this via Ivory St.

Can't agree with this one.  185 isn't on an appropriate routing for BUZification.  Why would you go to Cavendish Rd & Holland Rd via Stanley Bridge???

Also, the 180 is a noted overcrowded route, why not BUZ that one, albeit with some modifications.

This one is open. Usually people suggest route changes before they are BUZzed. See the discussion about BUZ 450- the discussion around that is about higher frequency AND changes to the route to make it faster.

Down Stanley St
into Cavendish Road
through wishart (should this bit be altered?)

The 174/175 already covers the Logan road corridor with BUZ frequency.

Why not BUZ the route which is already the busy one, rather than tinker with another route to attract pax?  I know what you are about to say/thinking that I am advocating tinkering with the 180, but that is so that extra people will receive the BUZ service.  Or to put it another way, to enhance the BUZ coverage.  Logan Rd is covered by the 174/175, although these need to run half hourly each on BUZ operating hours.

Have you considered that many people want to travel from New Farm to the Valley or vice versa? Your suggestion would add to the disfunction of Brisbane's public transport. If I had to interchange between train and bus via a 10 min walk, then I might as well drive from Chez BrizCommuter to New Farm instead.

Yes, I have.  These people are still able to use the 196/197, as I said in my last post.

How many people are you saying would use the 199 from New Farm to the Valley?  I expect less than 15% of the New Farm 199 pax.  The majority of these would be able to walk, and also some would be coming from Brunswick St where they are able to use the 196 without interchange.

As for encouraging people to drive, the current via Valley route already achieves that in a lot of cases IMO!!

And as for adding to the disfunction of Brisbane's PT, aren't you being a bit of a drama queen here?

[#Metro]

I agree with Brizcommuter, do not touch 199!
When I think of "valley" I think of 199. "Train" does not enter my mind.
Most of the buses in Brisbane use one of Elizabeth, Adelaide or some other city street.
Its very simple to walk to Adelaide St and get the 199.

I am not walking all the way up a hill to Central which is very crowded so that I can wait for a train that takes me to the valley and then walk out again and catch 196.

Well, I would think that the lion's share of pax for the New Farm part of the 199 are heading to or through the city.  Do you think otherwise?  A lower number of people use the 196, so there would be a lower benefit to running this via Ivory St.

BUZ 199 is a very legible Valley route. If you want to go the the valley, the first thing I think of is 199.
If 196 was BUZZed it would improve the speed of that route, which would pull more passengers. Due to two high frequency bus lines overlapping each other on Brunswick street one of them could go permanently via Ivory St. IMHO if that were to happen, then it should be 196.

DO NOT TOUCH 199

[#Metro]

Can't agree with this one.  185 isn't on an appropriate routing for BUZification.  Why would you go
to Cavendish Rd & Holland Rd via Stanley Bridge???

Why not BUZ the route which is already the busy one, rather than tinker with another route to
attract pax?  I know what you are about to say/thinking that I am advocating tinkering with the 180,
but that is so that extra people will receive the BUZ service.  Or to put it another way, to enhance
the BUZ coverage.  Logan Rd is covered by the 174/175, although these need to run half hourly each
on BUZ operating hours.

I don't really mind what the route or route number is, so long as there is a BUZ that serves that area and it is
reasonably direct, frequent and fast. This is what matters.

Also, the 180 is a noted overcrowded route, why not BUZ that one, albeit with some modifications.

As I said, I don't mind so much, but the top bit going via logan road looks like a high frequency service goes there anyway.
What modifications do you propose to 180???

[somebody]

I agree with Brizcommuter, do not touch 199!
When I think of "valley" I think of 199. "Train" does not enter my mind.
Most of the buses in Brisbane use one of Elizabeth, Adelaide or some other city street.
Its very simple to walk to Adelaide St and get the 199.

I am not walking all the way up a hill to Central which is very crowded so that I can wait for a train that takes me to the valley and then walk out again and catch 196.

Well, I would think that the lion's share of pax for the New Farm part of the 199 are heading to or through the city.  Do you think otherwise?  A lower number of people use the 196, so there would be a lower benefit to running this via Ivory St.

BUZ 199 is a very legible Valley route. If you want to go the the valley, the first thing I think of is 199.
If 196 was BUZZed it would improve the speed of that route, which would pull more passengers. Due to two high frequency bus lines overlapping each other on Brunswick street one of them could go permanently via Ivory St. IMHO if that were to happen, then it should be 196.

DO NOT TOUCH 199

It's not appropriate to use a to New Farm service to provide transport to the Valley!!

As well as the train, there is also the 174/175/124/125 and numerous others from Adelaide St, last stop approaching Edward St.  204 also goes to the Valley but may use a different stop.

I assume that you use the train to get from the Valley TO the CBD.

Your current patterns are something that needs to stop.  Thank you for supporting my argument with your attempted rebuttal.

Have you considered that many people want to travel from New Farm to the Valley or vice versa? Your suggestion would add to the disfunction of Brisbane's public transport. If I had to interchange between train and bus via a 10 min walk, then I might as well drive from Chez BrizCommuter to New Farm instead.

One more point on this.  If this is really a consideration (which I doubt), it is possible to provide a separate Valley-New Farm service.  I wouldn't see the demand for this one, but I'll put it out there anyway.

[BrizCommuter]

Have you considered that many people want to travel from New Farm to the Valley or vice versa? Your suggestion would add to the disfunction of Brisbane's public transport. If I had to interchange between train and bus via a 10 min walk, then I might as well drive from Chez BrizCommuter to New Farm instead.

One more point on this.  If this is really a consideration (which I doubt), it is possible to provide a separate Valley-New Farm service.  I wouldn't see the demand for this one, but I'll put it out there anyway.

I don't think you realise how many travel from the Valley to New Farm and back. Whenever I've used the 199 (or 196), between 30-50% of the passengers board the bus in the Valley (the first stop on Brunswick St, opposite the Empire). The same goes for alighting passengers in the opposite direction. I suggest you pull the wool from over your eyes next time you use the 199. You do use it don't you?

[#Metro]

I assume that you use the train to get from the Valley TO the CBD.

There are many times I have used route 199. It is very useful and successful. Leave it alone.
None of the other routes are BUZ, so an alteration like this is going to destroy the legibility.
I don't mind your suggestions for bus route changes, but this one I strongly disagree with.

DO NOT TOUCH ROUTE 199

[somebody]

You do use it don't you?

Occasionally.  I certainly have only seen a handful get on in the Valley heading outbound.

If you are talking about the Brunswick St stop opposite Empire, it is only about 220m to the next one which could be served from Ivory St!

[somebody]

199 Poll here: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5163.0

[ButFli]

I'm just gonna chuck it out there and say that if you're going from the City to the Valley or vice versa then the CityGlider is the bus you should be catching.

That doesn't mean I think the 199 should be diverted, oh no. There are still plenty o' peeps who want to go from the Valley to New Farm or vice versa. Personally I think the system they have now in peak where every second 199 goes Ivory St is a scam. So many confused passengers. I'm not exactly sure how this can be avoided, I think the solution has something to do with using a different number for Ivory St. Possibly extending the 195 down West End way and upping the freqency is the solution. I don't really know.

What I do know is that there is a big difference between what goes down on the 199 at 10AM on a Saturday morning and what happens during peak in the week.

[#Metro]

Possibly extending the 195 down West End way and upping the freqency is the solution. I don't really know.

What I do know is that there is a big difference between what goes down on the 199 at 10AM on a Saturday morning and what happens during peak in the week.

LOL! You know, the 195 used to go to West End and terminate in Jane Street.
That's was before they renumbered everything from 190/191/193/194/195 system.

I'm glad they took the hard line cut all the rubbish out. It makes it much simpler now. Going to West End? Catch 199 or Cityglider.
Nice and simple. They should fold 197 into 196 and BUZ it, terminate it at the Brisbane Powerhouse. Maybe this could go via the Ivory St full-time.

[BrizCommuter]

Possibly extending the 195 down West End way and upping the freqency is the solution. I don't really know.

What I do know is that there is a big difference between what goes down on the 199 at 10AM on a Saturday morning and what happens during peak in the week.

LOL! You know, the 195 used to go to West End and terminate in Jane Street.
That's was before they renumbered everything from 190/191/193/194/195 system.

I'm glad they took the hard line cut all the rubbish out. It makes it much simpler now. Going to West End? Catch 199 or Cityglider.
Nice and simple. They should fold 197 into 196 and BUZ it, terminate it at the Brisbane Powerhouse. Maybe this could go via the Ivory St full-time.

The 196 and 197 should also go via Anne St and Warner St for the same reason as the 199.

[somebody]

One of the problems with our public transport system is the lack of cross town links.  There are a number of cases of these attempting to be provided in CBD services.  I'm not really a fan of this, although the part where a number of routes terminate at Garden City is good.  However, there are a lot of cases where neither service is effectively provided.

[ozbob]

Media Release 31 December 2010

SEQ:  Public transport priorities for 2011!

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) is a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport commuters, members have discussed transport priorities for 2011. The full discussion thread can be read here --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5139.0

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"There clearly needs to be a continued focus on improving the Queensland Rail suburban and interurban train service frequencies in 2011(1). This will begin to occur with the implementation of the new rail timetable on the Ipswich to Caboolture line. An out of peak 15 minute train frequency for all stations between Darra and the CBD will be transforming and offers opportunities to put in place proper bus feeder systems to escape the road and bus congestion from the western regions particularly.  Alarmingly there has been no indication by TransLink what these arrangements will be."

"A major concern is ongoing issues with bus - rail integration, this is compounded of course by the abysmal train frequency on most lines out of peak particularly. Fixing this is a major priority. More consideration needs to be given to cross-suburban bus routes, this will help ease the inner city bus and road congestion. A lack of community consultation by TransLink for bus improvements and changes has no doubt contributed to the poor outcome in Ipswich and the introduction of the wasteful route 88 bus service."

"The failure to sort out the Airtrain so that it operates around the clock is very concerning. This is presently a wasted resource."

"Transit oriented development rhetoric needs to be translated into action.  Major rail infrastructure projects, including Cross River Rail need to be accelerated.  Peak Oil and the extreme negative impacts of a imported oil based economy are going to hit big time, now is the time to put in place proper sustainable mass transit systems (2,3)

"The fare increases which impact on the 17th January 2011 are being disguised by clever advertising, reminding all of the at least 30% cheaper fares for go card relative to the paper single tickets but no direct mention of fare increases. Off peak fare discounts need to be increased more than the planned 15% to help maximise use of the public transport assets.  How the public takes to an annual 15% compound fare increase is a moot point.  Unless there is a dramatic improvement in service frequency and delivery there is likely to be a significant electoral backlash.  Now is the time to get cracking! Happy new year!"

References:

1. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5139.0

2. Report warns of oil woes http://www.theage.com.au/national/report-warns-of-oil-woes-20101227-198k2.html

3. New Zealand Parliament Report: The next oil shock? http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/ParlSupport/ResearchPapers/4/6/a/00PLEco10041-The-next-oil-shock.htm

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[somebody]

These are passengers who are waiting at the stop ready to pay their way but are unable to because the bus that should be on their route to pick them up has been put on some other route that loses money.

You do understand that the bus isn't on any such route, but is sitting in the depot, rusting?