PM peak rocket city stops

[somebody]

Been thinking quite a bit about the solution for the PM peak.  Currently, most of the rockets go out half empty, while the full time routes are packed.  Best solution would be to reverse the departures during the PM peak. i.e. Rockets ex-QSBS, BUZes ex-Adelaide St.  Outside of peak hour the BUZes could stay in QSBS. 

The planners would never do it though.

[Mr X]

The problem is people don't ever realise where the rockets can be found and just go for the full time BUZ.. this is seen especially on the 130. I know heaps of people who use it in peak hour and they have no idea routes such as the 131/133/135/137 exist.. =\

[somebody]

The problem is people don't ever realise where the rockets can be found and just go for the full time BUZ.. this is seen especially on the 130. I know heaps of people who use it in peak hour and they have no idea routes such as the 131/133/135/137 exist.. =\

Exactly the problem which is solved by the plan I have outlined.

[dwb]

Been thinking quite a bit about the solution for the PM peak.  Currently, most of the rockets go out half empty, while the full time routes are packed.  Best solution would be to reverse the departures during the PM peak. i.e. Rockets ex-QSBS, BUZes ex-Adelaide St.  Outside of peak hour the BUZes could stay in QSBS. 

The planners would never do it though.

Have more BUZes, with pre pay and pre tagged all door boarding?

Or have less rockets, or hold them till they're full...

but having on demand routes is a little wacky! I wouldn't reverse it, too complicated to know where to go when, besides who knows what will happen with Adelaide St, and it's better to have the rockets disrupted than the BUZes.

[dwb]

The problem is people don't ever realise where the rockets can be found and just go for the full time BUZ.. this is seen especially on the 130. I know heaps of people who use it in peak hour and they have no idea routes such as the 131/133/135/137 exist.. =\

Exactly the problem which is solved by the plan I have outlined.

So you want to kill the success of the BUZes by making them complicated?

Sounds really odd to me. I'd boost the BUZes and also take some seats out. Most of the routes are packed for the first 15mins then not after that. Would allow more passengers to use the same number of buses for their short hop home. Would probably be unpopular to start, after all people like having a seat, but really when it comes down to it, people already stand rather than wait for the next bus, so clearly they do actually value getting home sooner more, than the seat.

[somebody]

So you want to kill the success of the BUZes by making them complicated?

I thought making them more complicated would be a downside, and you especially wouldn't like that.  However, look at the result: Everyone has a single place to go to get their best service.  I'm not sure that they would even need to change the definition of a BUZ.  Exactly how would the success be killed?

[dwb]

So you want to kill the success of the BUZes by making them complicated?

I thought making them more complicated would be a downside, and you especially wouldn't like that.  However, look at the result: Everyone has a single place to go to get their best service.  I'm not sure that they would even need to change the definition of a BUZ.  Exactly how would the success be killed?

We're talking about the southbound BUZes right? Cos the northbound BUZes leave from KGS not QSBS...

So perhaps, given north and south are actually in different directions, we could actually move the BUZes from QSBS into KGSBS???

Surely it is only the norhtbound platform and routing that is peak in the afternoon at KGSBS?? Couldn't the out of service routes feed in from the SET via Grey St Bridge and Skew St entrance to the busway (ie rather than entering from Vic Bridge and turning around after conflicting with 444/385 before).

Surely KGSBS is not "full" with just 111, 88 and 66???

[dwb]

It would also mean for instance that 222 and 200 could be co-located.

I just don't believe KGS is "full", especially if we do things smarter ala closed station with ticketing gate on concourse and all-door all prepaid and pretagged boarding.

[dwb]

Or even, could some of those north bound and south bound BUZes be paired into single THROUGH routes. Would seem to make sense, and would also mean less interchange, so CC would become less busy with PAX and less busy with empty BUZes terminating and turning around.

Or is that too complicated or already more or less an operating approach? I always thought for instance the 385 bus stayed 385 in and out bound. I could imagine it might be slightly difficult given their peaks are in different directions, however it pains me how bad the 385 is counter peak and maybe this could be an excuse to raise counter peak frequency, if not to all services, partly

[somebody]

Don't steal the north side's infrastructure for south side routes please!

There are also 330, 333, 340, 345, 385 all of which should stay in KGSBS, as well as 325, 350-2, 357, 359 and 390 which should be moved there.

I take it then that you can't answer this:

Exactly how would the success be killed?

[Golliwog]

Exactly how would the success be killed?

By making it have different departure points depending on the time of day!

I'm also a fan of the idea of joining northside and southside BUZ routes so they can share KGSBS and help make CC less crowded. Might even go some way to helping reduce the bus queue that usually happens there. Yes, it would make the route a long one and a bit unwieldy, BUT if they need to they can do something like the trains to and add in a few minutes in the timetable to allow for a driver change at KGSBS or something similar.

[somebody]

Exactly how would the success be killed?

By making it have different departure points depending on the time of day!

Yes, but at times that the BUZ is not leaving from QSBS, a better alternative is.  Where's the problem?

[dwb]

Exactly how would the success be killed?

By making it have different departure points depending on the time of day!

Yes, but at times that the BUZ is not leaving from QSBS, a better alternative is.  Where's the problem?

Consistency, legibility, understandability.... need I go on.

Exactly how would the success be killed?

By making it have different departure points depending on the time of day!

I'm also a fan of the idea of joining northside and southside BUZ routes so they can share KGSBS and help make CC less crowded. Might even go some way to helping reduce the bus queue that usually happens there. Yes, it would make the route a long one and a bit unwieldy, BUT if they need to they can do something like the trains to and add in a few minutes in the timetable to allow for a driver change at KGSBS or something similar.

Thanks Golliwog, I don't think the routes would be too long and unwieldy, afterall BUZes are meant to be timetable-less, so as long as they're frequent enough it shouldn't be a problem. One possible problem would be impacting north reliability with south's issues, but I think we broadly need to get over this north-south division that is so rampant in Brisbane.

Don't steal the north side's infrastructure for south side routes please!

There are also 330, 333, 340, 345, 385 all of which should stay in KGSBS, as well as 325, 350-2, 357, 359 and 390 which should be moved there.

I take it then that you can't answer this:

Exactly how would the success be killed?

Why should those (325, 350-2, 357, 359 and 390 ) routes be moved there?

Of course 330, 333, 340, 345, 385 should stay in KGSBS, but really 385 and 345 are drop only in the southerly direction. Besides, if for example the 385 and 140 were merged, then they'd be using the same stop in KGSBS anyway, and not only that, preventing an inbound counter peak 385 customer de-boarding and congesting CC for interchange!

[Golliwog]

Exactly how would the success be killed?

By making it have different departure points depending on the time of day!

Yes, but at times that the BUZ is not leaving from QSBS, a better alternative is.  Where's the problem?

Better for who? Rockets, by definition, don't stop everywhere the BUZ stops. So sure, no worries for those that live further out where the rocket ends.

[somebody]

Better for who? Rockets, by definition, don't stop everywhere the BUZ stops. So sure, no worries for those that live further out where the rocket ends.

Every BUZ on the south side has a peak time only service to every stop besides the Cultural Centre-Mater Hill bit, at least to the degree that it is logical to use the single seat journey.  I guess the bit of the 120 beyond QEII doesn't meet that criteria, but I say that isn't an issue.

Why should those (325, 350-2, 357, 359 and 390 ) routes be moved there?

To take advantage of the infrastructure.  Currently these routes take 8 minutes from Roma St Station to Queen St (surface).  That is unacceptable.

It's a no brainer.

[somebody]

Then if you don't support the Adelaide St/QSBS BUZ/Rocket plan I outlined above, do you support a reduction in the numbers of BUZ routes out of QSBS so that their rockets can be placed adjacent to the BUZes?  Or continue with the present system?

[Golliwog]

Then if you don't support the Adelaide St/QSBS BUZ/Rocket plan I outlined above, do you support a reduction in the numbers of BUZ routes out of QSBS so that their rockets can be placed adjacent to the BUZes?  Or continue with the present system?

Is there anything at the BUZ stop saying "hey guys, there's a rocket bus that'll get you to the same place this BUZ goes, but faster. It leaves from stop XX on Adelaide St"? Does the rocket frequency match the BUZ frequency?

[somebody]

It may help, although I wouldn't get excited about its prospects.

[dwb]

Better for who? Rockets, by definition, don't stop everywhere the BUZ stops. So sure, no worries for those that live further out where the rocket ends.

Every BUZ on the south side has a peak time only service to every stop besides the Cultural Centre-Mater Hill bit, at least to the degree that it is logical to use the single seat journey.  I guess the bit of the 120 beyond QEII doesn't meet that criteria, but I say that isn't an issue.

Why should those (325, 350-2, 357, 359 and 390 ) routes be moved there?

To take advantage of the infrastructure.  Currently these routes take 8 minutes from Roma St Station to Queen St (surface).  That is unacceptable.

It's a no brainer.

I also think putting the 374 in the KGS is a good idea, pretty sure you boo booed that though, despite it shadowing 385 for most of its route and despite being underutilised because punters prefer the BUZ.

[dwb]

Then if you don't support the Adelaide St/QSBS BUZ/Rocket plan I outlined above, do you support a reduction in the numbers of BUZ routes out of QSBS so that their rockets can be placed adjacent to the BUZes?  Or continue with the present system?

Conceptually, sure, QSBS isn't an interchange point anyway (CC is) but concretely what are you talking about?

[dwb]

Exactly how would the success be killed?

By making it have different departure points depending on the time of day!

Yes, but at times that the BUZ is not leaving from QSBS, a better alternative is.  Where's the problem?

Better for who? Rockets, by definition, don't stop everywhere the BUZ stops. So sure, no worries for those that live further out where the rocket ends.

Exactly Golliwog, you'd be amazed how many people inbound at my stop let several other routes go by waiting for the BUZ, and I'm not even far from the city. The reason why?? They don't understand where the other routes go. Its that simple. That is why the BUZ is so popular, it is all day the one route, the one stopping pattern, the one place to go, so Simon, don't go messing with that successful and understandable formula.

We obviously need some inner city bus solutions/new ideas, that is clear, but breaking down the success and legibility of BUZ is NOT the place to begin!

[somebody]

I also think putting the 374 in the KGS is a good idea, pretty sure you boo booed that though, despite it shadowing 385 for most of its route and despite being underutilised because punters prefer the BUZ.

I just see other routes as more important for KGSBS.  You'd also need the Bardon side of the 375 for it to be logical.

Then if you don't support the Adelaide St/QSBS BUZ/Rocket plan I outlined above, do you support a reduction in the numbers of BUZ routes out of QSBS so that their rockets can be placed adjacent to the BUZes?  Or continue with the present system?

Conceptually, sure, QSBS isn't an interchange point anyway (CC is) but concretely what are you talking about?

I thought it was quite clear.  Do you support:
(a) Adelaide St BUZ in peak + QSBS rocket
(b) Roughly halving the number of BUZes which leave from QSBS so that the rockets can also leave from QSBS (besides the P157)
(c) Continuing with the current system

Seems that the answer is (c).

AARRGGHH!!  It's the city stop locations which are the problem.  P443 and P157 don't suffer this problem and get quite reasonable loadings in the PM.  I am sure that the other south side rockets get reasonable loadings in the AM.  Maybe one day I'll stand on the corner of George St & Elizabeth St at 8am to prove the point, but no one would listen even then, so that would be pointless.

you'd be amazed how many people inbound at my stop let several other routes go by waiting for the BUZ, and I'm not even far from the city. The reason why?? They don't understand where the other routes go. Its that simple.

You don't think that could be affected by them not wanting to go via North Quay?  Similar with the 343, 382, 383 I/B in that they don't want to go via Ann St.  There's only one stop served by the 374 and the 385.  Given that it's the last one this does surprise me as the next 385 could easily be full.

[dwb]

I also think putting the 374 in the KGS is a good idea, pretty sure you boo booed that though, despite it shadowing 385 for most of its route and despite being underutilised because punters prefer the BUZ.

I just see other routes as more important for KGSBS.  You'd also need the Bardon side of the 375 for it to be logical.

You really wouldn't as the 374 is much more logically grouped with 385 than 374 despite 374's stated role as overflow for 375. If it helps renumber the thing to 386 or even 385 with "Bardon" rather than "The Gap"... surely people could (if done at a system level) understand short terminations for buses?

Then if you don't support the Adelaide St/QSBS BUZ/Rocket plan I outlined above, do you support a reduction in the numbers of BUZ routes out of QSBS so that their rockets can be placed adjacent to the BUZes?  Or continue with the present system?

Conceptually, sure, QSBS isn't an interchange point anyway (CC is) but concretely what are you talking about?

I thought it was quite clear.  Do you support:
(a) Adelaide St BUZ in peak + QSBS rocket
(b) Roughly halving the number of BUZes which leave from QSBS so that the rockets can also leave from QSBS (besides the P157)
(c) Continuing with the current system

Seems that the answer is (c).

I categorically DO NOT support a mismatch in time and stopping preference for BUZ/rockets, at least as you have proposed. I may support for instance a more on demand stopping pattern of the same collection of routes within the one station, for instance operating routes from different stops WITHIN KGS at different times of the day.

I had thought you were proposing moving some rockets with some BUZes and keeping them in QSBS and then moving some other rockets and their similar BUZes to Adelaide St... which I may support, but I'd want to know exactly which ones you'd put where and how they'd be grouped. To reiterate I would NOT support having BUZes displaced to a fully different location in peak, for rockets. As Golliwog identifies, rockets and peaks have different stopping patterns.

AARRGGHH!!  It's the city stop locations which are the problem.  P443 and P157 don't suffer this problem and get quite reasonable loadings in the PM.  I am sure that the other south side rockets get reasonable loadings in the AM.  Maybe one day I'll stand on the corner of George St & Elizabeth St at 8am to prove the point, but no one would listen even then, so that would be pointless.

you'd be amazed how many people inbound at my stop let several other routes go by waiting for the BUZ, and I'm not even far from the city. The reason why?? They don't understand where the other routes go. Its that simple.

You don't think that could be affected by them not wanting to go via North Quay?  Similar with the 343, 382, 383 I/B in that they don't want to go via Ann St.  There's only one stop served by the 374 and the 385.  Given that it's the last one this does surprise me as the next 385 could easily be full.

Yes it could be related to North Quay, for the 374 at least (but not 375), but the time delay from KGS on the 382/3 surely would only be a minute's walking penalty unless you are bound for Cultural Centre given their stop locations just after leaving INB after Roma St.

I see you're not an origin fan either? Or multitasking??

[dwb]

PS, 374 and 385 currently share 2 stops, not one.

I would suggest adding a 3rd (cnr Given Tce/ Latrobe Tce) and making the 374 limited stops, as it is peak time peak direction only (ie made for commuters) and they're voting with their feet at the moment on the 385 over the 375.

Or even better run the Paddo Bus to Bardon and build a bus turn around on the empty land where the BP used to be at Bardon (cnr MacGregor Tce and Simpsons Rd). That would mean they would share 4 stops... one of which would be new, two which are currently shared and the 4th which is currently shared by 375 and 385.

[dwb]

I'm not a moderator, so perhaps someone who is can branch this from http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=195.msg62365#msg62365 onwards, as I think we're getting off topic.

[longboi]

The way I see it, the best solution would be to put more emphasis on grouping similar routes and providing appropriate signage to identify the types of routes and where they stop.

Also, what if peak hour services that mirror BUZ routes were given the same number with, say, an 'L', 'X' or even 'P' prefix? For example, 374 would become L385.

[dwb]

The way I see it, the best solution would be to put more emphasis on grouping similar routes and providing appropriate signage to identify the types of routes and where they stop.

Also, what if peak hour services that mirror BUZ routes were given the same number with, say, an 'L', 'X' or even 'P' prefix? For example, 374 would become L385.

Why L??

Yes I agree re grouping, the recent shuffle in Adelaide St attempted that, but the busway/non busway divide still exists, and it is hard to avoid.

[somebody]

PS, 374 and 385 currently share 2 stops, not one.

Correct.

I would suggest adding a 3rd (cnr Given Tce/ Latrobe Tce) and making the 374 limited stops, as it is peak time peak direction only (ie made for commuters) and they're voting with their feet at the moment on the 385 over the 375.

Agreed on the extension.  If space in KGSBS is to be used for Caxton St, I can't really support the 375 Bardon service being kept out though.  It would be better to remove the 374, split the 375 and put the Bardon side of the 375 into KGSBS.  Currently neither 374 or 375 get good loadings.  375 I/B may use less of North Quay than the 374, but the bit through Herschel St is even worse.

[dwb]

PS, 374 and 385 currently share 2 stops, not one.

Correct.

I would suggest adding a 3rd (cnr Given Tce/ Latrobe Tce) and making the 374 limited stops, as it is peak time peak direction only (ie made for commuters) and they're voting with their feet at the moment on the 385 over the 375.

Agreed on the extension.  If space in KGSBS is to be used for Caxton St, I can't really support the 375 Bardon service being kept out though.  It would be better to remove the 374, split the 375 and put the Bardon side of the 375 into KGSBS.  Currently neither 374 or 375 get good loadings.  375 I/B may use less of North Quay than the 374, but the bit through Herschel St is even worse.

The Herschel St *can be* VERY bad, but normally isn't too bad. I think it could be acceptable if changes were made to bus priority at the intersection of Adelaide St and North Quay. There are currently two general lanes on the left, a bus island and one lane on the right. Some buses turning left go in the right lane skipping the congestion in the left lanes and wait until they get the green which is really for straight through/on to Vic Bridge and then turn left. The only problem with this is it is AFTER the general traffic cycle, so you have to skip a lot of traffic for it to save you time, and then, it can be rather awkward as it conflicts with the pedestrian phase across Adelaide St.

If the right lane got a dedicated left turn light cycled BEFORE the general traffic, then it would be quite beneficial to buses. Closing general traffic from Victoria Bridge would probably have a similar impact as much of this traffic that does the George St left turn, North Quay left turn, does a right turn onto Vic Bridge rather than go straight into William St.

As I've previously said I wouldn't support breaking the 375 into 2 routes, it is highly beneficial that it goes to the Valley without interchange. I would also argue the point that the 375 isn't necessarily well patronised - it is usually in peak (much much much more so than 374 which is usually empty!).

If there were a simple left turn out of the INB travelling east, then perhaps 375 would go in, but there isn't, and I don't think it would even be advantageous to use Ann St via Turbot INB exit, esp as it complicates the return journey and you still have to mess around in George St.

[dwb]

If space in KGSBS is to be used for Caxton St, I can't really support the 375 Bardon service being kept out though.

Could you support 374 going in and being renamed 386 Bardon Rocket and come back to fight for 375 another day?

[somebody]

If space in KGSBS is to be used for Caxton St, I can't really support the 375 Bardon service being kept out though.

Could you support 374 going in and being renamed 386 Bardon Rocket and come back to fight for 375 another day?

No.

I don't care about the number, but calling it "Bardon Rocket" would have many confused passengers, who would expect it to reach the 375 terminus.  As for 374/386 in 375 out of KGSBS, already answered.

[longboi]

The way I see it, the best solution would be to put more emphasis on grouping similar routes and providing appropriate signage to identify the types of routes and where they stop.

Also, what if peak hour services that mirror BUZ routes were given the same number with, say, an 'L', 'X' or even 'P' prefix? For example, 374 would become L385.

Why L??

Just thinking of STA and their 'Limited Stop' routes when I wrote that.

[dwb]

Just thinking of STA and their 'Limited Stop' routes when I wrote that.

Ahhh k, I'd think X works better for express, but then express probably means something different to other people... and then how does that compare with BUZ. To be honest, I was surprised they didn't make all the BUZes the prepaid routes!

[somebody]

So let me get this straight.  You would agree that the rocket services fall short of the patronage that they should be getting in the PM, but are arguing that little should be done about it?  Or am I missing something?

[dwb]

So let me get this straight.  You would agree that the rocket services fall short of the patronage that they should be getting in the PM, but are arguing that little should be done about it?  Or am I missing something?

Are you talking to me or someone else?

I don't think nothing should be done, but I don't think we should be proposing a more convoluted network.

To me the success in BUZ is that it is understandable across the city. It is almost like the metro network of buses in Brisbane. BUZ replaced to a large extent a fragmented system before with cityxpresses, rockets, shuttles and 'other' services. Sure they might still exist but who knows what they mean? And are all rockets prepaid? No, but why not? Wouldn't that have been logical??

I, like others on here, think the best approach with buses is SIMPLIFICATION. I agree, we shouldn't cling to rules like 'all BUZ need to go via Cultural Centre', esp not in the long run, these kinds of things should be more like guidelines, but they should exist for a purpose.

So, going back to BUZes, why are they successful? My understanding is that they are:
(1) well resourced, meaning frequent, at least every 15mins (almost forget the need for a timetable)
(2) geographically are spread across the city
(3) are more reliable than many other routes (as many use the busway or parts of the busway)
(4) operating hours - they run early and late in the day and all through weekends, not just in peak hour in peak direction, and they pick you up where they dropped you off
(5) BUZ is on all displays - sure there are 15 routes with "The Gap" on the front but only 1 The Gap BUZ!
(6) They are faster than other routes... limited stops/ they don't stop at all stops driving me mad, but they do stop in centres, and they've generally got direct routes that don't dogleg like many other routes around the city

Why should it be slower to get from the city to the suburbs or across suburbs out of peak? Why should rockets therefore only operate in peak? And where do they stop cos I can't figure it out?

Why can't all our routes be:
-direct
-fast
-have good frequency (even on the weekends)
-have simple understandable direct and logical routes, drop you off and pick you up from the same spot

So perhaps we should reinvent rockets and not just run them in peak hour?

[somebody]

I see you're not an origin fan either? Or multitasking??

Not really a fan.  I watched most of it though.  Was a shame about the NSW loss.

So let me get this straight.  You would agree that the rocket services fall short of the patronage that they should be getting in the PM, but are arguing that little should be done about it?  Or am I missing something?

Are you talking to me or someone else?

You in particular.

I don't think nothing should be done, but I don't think we should be proposing a more convoluted network.

Well, I've also proposed moving a number of routes out of QSBS, enough to allow the relative rockets to have the same or adjacent stops as the BUZes and you didn't seem interested in that idea.

And are all rockets prepaid? No, but why not? Wouldn't that have been logical??

In some cases (e.g. 215/P216, 220/P221, 340/P341) it isn't logical for the rocket to be pre paid because the full time service doesn't run through the peak.

So, going back to BUZes, why are they successful?

I think the major issue is that the frequency is reliable.  It is OK to go out on PT because you can expect to not wait more than 15 minutes for your return trip.

(6) They are faster than other routes... limited stops/ they don't stop at all stops driving me mad, but they do stop in centres, and they've generally got direct routes that don't dogleg like many other routes around the city

Aren't you against routing the 199 via Ivory St?  That would make much more difference for New Farm than cutting out a few stops.

I don't think the limited stops is nearly as big a deal as you think.  Look at the 199 which is the busiest BUZ and it isn't limited stops.

Why should it be slower to get from the city to the suburbs or across suburbs out of peak?

Doing this for the south side means full time Captain Cook bridge routings.  I'm in favour of an increase in this, but Cultural Centre, South Bank and Mater Hill are still destinations and deserve to have a reasonable service.  Not sure what the correct answer is here.

And where do they stop cos I can't figure it out?

I have proposed a couple of solutions to this quite serious problem which you have shown a complete disinterest in.

Why can't all our routes be:
-direct
-fast
-have good frequency (even on the weekends)
-have simple understandable direct and logical routes, drop you off and pick you up from the same spot

So perhaps we should reinvent rockets and not just run them in peak hour?

There is a need for welfare routes as well as the routes you describe.  I don't think we should turn our back on grannies completely.

Even the 385 has a quite displaced I/B vs O/B stop at one point.

[dwb]

Not really a fan.  I watched most of it though.  Was a shame about the NSW loss.

Lol.

Are you talking to me or someone else?

You in particular.

awww I feel privileged

Well, I've also proposed moving a number of routes out of QSBS, enough to allow the relative rockets to have the same or adjacent stops as the BUZes and you didn't seem interested in that idea.

Actually I'm fine with this idea, if you move some routes (both their rockets and BUZes) to Adelaide St, and keep some other pairs of rockets and BUZes in QSBS. Full support.

And are all rockets prepaid? No, but why not? Wouldn't that have been logical??

In some cases (e.g. 215/P216, 220/P221, 340/P341) it isn't logical for the rocket to be pre paid because the full time service doesn't run through the peak.

Oh ok, this is some of that complexity that I'm talking about... what is the reason that the peak and offpeak take different routes and have different numbers and different payment requirements? Wouldn't it be better to have one route that a commuter then was familiar with and could take to replace a midday trip or weekend trip? Otherwise that barrier of unfamiliarity and fear of ending up in the wrong place or going on a long detour will keep them to the route they are familiar with (which if it is the rocket, means that other trips will be contested by other modes, probably car).

So, going back to BUZes, why are they successful?

I think the major issue is that the frequency is reliable.  It is OK to go out on PT because you can expect to not wait more than 15 minutes for your return trip.

Yes, agree that it is one (major) factor.

(6) They are faster than other routes... limited stops/ they don't stop at all stops driving me mad, but they do stop in centres, and they've generally got direct routes that don't dogleg like many other routes around the city

Aren't you against routing the 199 via Ivory St?  That would make much more difference for New Farm than cutting out a few stops.

You know my opinion on the 199 well. I would prefer to get the 196 into the tunnel and leave the 199 out of the tunnel. I still strongly also desire bus priority in the valley as unlikely as that may be. Or even for instance, why can't the 199 use the right lane like Glider?

I don't think the limited stops is nearly as big a deal as you think.  Look at the 199 which is the busiest BUZ and it isn't limited stops.

This is an inner city route that is really quite short. It wouldn't be contestable if it were longer, and the reason it is so popular is more to do with landuse and socioeconomic profile than service quality - despite it being one of the most popular routes in Brisbane you couldn't argue it is the highest quality (apart from frequency).

Why should it be slower to get from the city to the suburbs or across suburbs out of peak?

Doing this for the south side means full time Captain Cook bridge routings.  I'm in favour of an increase in this, but Cultural Centre, South Bank and Mater Hill are still destinations and deserve to have a reasonable service.  Not sure what the correct answer is here.

Nor I, however I also support full time Captain Cook Bridge routings... or even Story Bridge if you want to go down KP and into Valley or City that way.

And where do they stop cos I can't figure it out?

I have proposed a couple of solutions to this quite serious problem which you have shown a complete disinterest in.

I fully support improvements in mapping and signage at stops and electronic information available via the internet and smart phones. For instance I think it is ludicrous the busway system maps don't read direction of travel - platform 1 and platform 2 at KGS for instance should be reverse maps... so that buses coming in on your left and leaving on your right while looking at the map are coming in from the left of the diagram and going to the stations on the right of the diagram, such a minor change, but a major understandability factor. Like you, I think TL is doing a very poor job wrt this. I too have ridden the buses in London, and although I did get bamboozled a few times, there were often a large locational map at the shelter to help me sort myself out, or at the very least find the nearest tube station!

Why can't all our routes be:
-direct
-fast
-have good frequency (even on the weekends)
-have simple understandable direct and logical routes, drop you off and pick you up from the same spot

So perhaps we should reinvent rockets and not just run them in peak hour?

There is a need for welfare routes as well as the routes you describe.  I don't think we should turn our back on grannies completely.

Yes of course, I was taking this a little far for emphasis, not every but many! And yes, given an aging population there will be more and more grannies riding over the next 20yrs!

Even the 385 has a quite displaced I/B vs O/B stop at one point.

Really? I only ride the route to Bardon at the farthest, which let's be honest, in the afternoon peak, the bus is only 1/3 full by then, so the majority of outbound passengers. Of course there are going to be places where inbound and outbound won't be directly opposite, and I too have actually suggested this in the past with the 385 to Council (given their ludicrously bad installation of a new bus shelter), however the principal should be to keep it as simple as possible as often as possible, or KISS for short, don't you agree?

[somebody]

Oh ok, this is some of that complexity that I'm talking about... what is the reason that the peak and offpeak take different routes and have different numbers and different payment requirements? Wouldn't it be better to have one route that a commuter then was familiar with and could take to replace a midday trip or weekend trip? Otherwise that barrier of unfamiliarity and fear of ending up in the wrong place or going on a long detour will keep them to the route they are familiar with (which if it is the rocket, means that other trips will be contested by other modes, probably car).

I'm inclined to agree with you on this.  There is excessive variation.  The Wynnum Rd and Bulimba routes should use the Storey Bridge full time, for example, with a cross town route providing connectivity with the SE Busway.

I doubt that you can eliminate peak hour variation entirely though.

I still strongly also desire bus priority in the valley as unlikely as that may be.

That's already present isn't it?  Bus Lanes on Wickham and Ann Sts.  There's a couple of dead spots such as from Brunswick St to Queen St on Ann St though.  Perhaps fixing those up is what you are referring to.

Or even for instance, why can't the 199 use the right lane like Glider?

Not sure.  The only thing I can think of is stop capacity at stop 216.  All of the West End bound routes should have the same stop.

however the principal should be to keep it as simple as possible as often as possible, or KISS for short, don't you agree?

Yes, so long as you don't go to extremes.

[Bulimba30A]

I think it is sensible for buses going in the same direction to leave from the same stop as a matter of course. 

Does anyone know why the old coloured bus stop system (eg yellow for Breakfast Creek Rd/Ipswich Rd/Wynnum Rd, blue for Stones Corner, red for Caxton St/Bowen Bridge Rd) was abandoned?  I would have thought that was much easier to follow than the coloured squares for Valley/Southbank etc.

I was thinking for peak, the AM southside rockets use Elizabeth St/"Riverside" stops which make sense as they cater well for the corporate precincts, and marginally better for the government precinct than QSBS.  May be a radical thought I know, but could the PM southside rockets use "Riverside"/Charlotte St/George St near QUT as stops instead of Adelaide St?  My reasoning is:

• it seems people gravitate to frequency in the QSBS and so maybe there is no incentive for someone coming from the centre of town, and maybe someone coming from Nth Quay/City North to prefer a rocket over a BUZ
• if the stops were to be more convenient to the place where people are coming from (eg Charlotte St for more corporate workers/George St for government), maybe that would start filling up the rockets
  

it may make the journey times faster from Riverside/CBD generally (seriously, I think I could walk from Eagle St to QSBS faster than a rocket going down Adelaide St sometimes)
[/list]

Another thing to consider is extending the peak (and rocket service times) to 7pm.  While people seem to start work around the same time, I don't necessarily get that feeling for finish.  There are many corporate jobs in which the "normal" leave time is betwen 6pm and 7pm.  After 6pm, you are likely to be walking to QSBS anyway and so could be the familiar option.

On a slightly different note, cutting out the Garden City deviation for the 136 and making the 162 a proper City Precincts (or commence from the Valley like the 207) makes more sense to me than the current set up.  The 162 could provide a much better connection to the SE busway than now (with the only busway station served by City Precincts services being Garden City) and think it would get people out of the City faster overall.

[somebody]

Definitely agree on the 136.  I'd also add that a Warrigal Rd & SEB City Precincts services could work.

Not so sure about the 162 though.  Removing that from the city centre means there isn't a real rocket service from 8 mile plains except the 118.