POLL: New UQ Lakes bus routes

[somebody]

These routes don't map easily.  I hope it is obvious what I mean.

I envisage the 159 running express PAH-Garden City.

I think the 79 would be far more patronised than the 77, and you can still interchange at PAH, even if it isn't very attractive heading north without knowing the timetable.

[Mr X]

People for the 150 are can just change at Griffith or Garbo really,
People for Chermside can just change for a 77 at Buranda or take the 109 to the Cultural Centre.

We can't fit many more bus routes into UQ Lakes- I don't think the 29 will fit as it is!

[SurfRail]

No to both.

The entire reasoning of the 77 is to provide a bypass route around the CBD for north-south travel.  By taking it out of Buranda, that objective is defeated.  Somebody coming through the CLEM 7 can change at Buranda to get to UQ.  You can't achieve the primary goal of a bypass route like this by not having a good interchange point with more frequent services and destinations available than at the PAH.

Likewise for the 159 - what is the problem with transferring at Buranda?  169s are virtually empty during the day outside the peak whenever I have seen them - put on more 150s and 169s instead of adding more routes.

[Golliwog]

I would support, if anything, changes to timetabling to make the 150 meets up better at Buranda with a UQ route. However, given the addition of 209 services to 139 and 169, there shouldn't be much of a wait, even off peak. Same goes for the 77, though you can actually change quite easily at the PAH so you can also add in the 109 and soon the 29.

Hell, I knew a guy who last semester used to catch the 555 from Logan to Buranda, then walk up the road to the PAH busway station to get a better frequency to UQ.

[AnonymouslyBad]

Not really a huge fan of either.

The 79: (Which would be more correctly numbered 339, wouldn't it? ) I know the 77 isn't that well patronised, and you probably would get more uni students by making it a direct service, but I think you give up too much of the flexibility you get by having it run through Buranda.

The 159: if you're going to introduce this, you may as well finish the job and give every southside BUZ a UQ equivalent. Unless it's going to be at least every 15 minutes it's just not worth the effort. More 169s would be better for everybody.

[somebody]

We can't fit many more bus routes into UQ Lakes- I don't think the 29 will fit as it is!

There is a planned upgrade to the station to solve this issue.

No to both.

The entire reasoning of the 77 is to provide a bypass route around the CBD for north-south travel.  By taking it out of Buranda, that objective is defeated.  Somebody coming through the CLEM 7 can change at Buranda to get to UQ.  You can't achieve the primary goal of a bypass route like this by not having a good interchange point with more frequent services and destinations available than at the PAH.

Likewise for the 159 - what is the problem with transferring at Buranda?  169s are virtually empty during the day outside the peak whenever I have seen them - put on more 150s and 169s instead of adding more routes.

Interesting viewpoint.

I'd expect the 79 to be more patronised than the 77.  Then what if both co-exist?

I still see merit in a 159, even if it is a peak hour only route; no way would it have trips outside of uni semesters.  Otherwise you are increasing the need to transfer, which would be best done at Griffith Uni which is reputedly already seeing congestion.  And the 150s are carrying more air between Griffith Uni and the city than what they need to.

Of course, interchanging at Buranda for a 150 would be pretty interesting 

The 159: if you're going to introduce this, you may as well finish the job and give every southside BUZ a UQ equivalent. Unless it's going to be at least every 15 minutes it's just not worth the effort. More 169s would be better for everybody.

Perhaps every BUZ carrying more than 1.5 million people?  I'd except the 199 on the grounds that interchange at the Cultural is too easy and doesn't result in empty bus-km for the New Farm people.  And there is the 192 and CityCat for the West End people.  I'd prefer the 196 went to UQ rather than Fairfield, but it's not known that meets my criteria yet.

[SurfRail]

Of course, interchanging at Buranda for a 150 would be pretty interesting 

Dopey me! 

Still works at Griffith Uni (139/169) or Upper Mt Gravatt (169) though without changing the 150 stopping pattern.

[Mr X]

I don't see why we need to make the system any more complex and add more same seat journeys from everywhere to everywhere. As others have mentioned, I'd only support a 159 etc. if it ran in peak hour only when there really are capacity constraints on the 109. In offpeak, I just don't see the point.

Perhaps every BUZ carrying more than 1.5 million people?  I'd except the 199 on the grounds that interchange at the Cultural is too easy and doesn't result in empty bus-km for the New Farm people.  And there is the 192 and CityCat for the West End people.  I'd prefer the 196 went to UQ rather than Fairfield, but it's not known that meets my criteria yet.

Do we really need a 389, 449, 339 etc..? As I said above, it just feeds the same seat journey mentality.

196 really doesn't need to service UQ, nor should it (I've said this before). This cuts off a link between Fairfield, Dutton Park and West End that has existed I believe since a bus route through this area was created. UQ has the 109 and the 192, and the 196 isn't designed as a UQ route. If anything, it should be extended to somewhere in Yeronga.
It also isn't that hard for the people along the 196 route to get off at the stops near Dutton Park and walk across the bridge to UQ.

[somebody]

I don't see the link between 109 & 159?

385 doesn't carry 1 mil.  339 = 79.  449 (Moggill-Chancellors Pl), I do see the point of this service in peak hour at least.  I'd agree that its surplus to requirements off peak.

Obviously, if the 196 no longer serves Fairfield then the 105/107/108 service would need beefing up.  I view this as a positive to that move.

[Mr X]

I don't see the link between 109 & 159?

Then bump up services for the 169? I was referring to both in the 109 comment..

385 doesn't carry 1 mil.  339 = 79.  449 (Moggill-Chancellors Pl), I do see the point of this service in peak hour at least.  I'd agree that its surplus to requirements off peak.

That's not the point. The services to UQ should be kept rationalised and succinct. If we're at a point where both 109 and 169 are chockers, then bump up the services, make them prepaid (not hard for uni students to get a go card with many places on campus selling them!) and offer rear door boarding.

Obviously, if the 196 no longer serves Fairfield then the 105/107/108 service would need beefing up.  I view this as a positive to that move.

Who is this meant to serve though? The 192 exists for a reason. Buses on the 196 would be running empty to UQ on weekends and during uni holidays (which is 4 months of the year by the way).
Why should people from the 196 route need to change services if they needed to get to Fairfield as well..?

EDIT:
Just dug up my points from the last time this was raised:

1. Such a right hand turn would hold up I/B traffic and the current route the 192 uses via Rusk St is sufficient imho.
2. During the uni holidays a BUZ would be overkill in service
3. Fairfield Gardens is an important shopping destination for people along the 196 route and people do use it to get to Fairfield
4. The 196 isn't a uni service and by pushing it to UQ you'd see services being full of uni students during uni peak and being too full to let the general public on in it's normal route as being a fast alternative to the 109, you'll see people flock to it. Not saying that extra services to UQ are a bad idea though but the 109 should be addressed rather than extending the 196.

[somebody]

That's not the point. The services to UQ should be kept rationalised and succinct. If we're at a point where both 109 and 169 are chockers, then bump up the services, make them prepaid (not hard for uni students to get a go card with many places on campus selling them!) and offer rear door boarding.

Ahh, the old feeder/trunk vs direct service argument.  Weren't you suggesting a 139 extension a while back?  Or was that someone else.

I'm not a fan of unnecessary interchange.  Although I do agree with your best practice suggestions for reducing UQ Lakes congestion.

Why should people from the 196 route need to change services if they needed to get to Fairfield as well..?

Is there much demand for this trip though?  If so, I can change my mind.

[Mr X]

Ahh, the old feeder/trunk vs direct service argument.  Weren't you suggesting a 139 extension a while back?  Or was that someone else.

I'm not a fan of unnecessary interchange.  Although I do agree with your best practice suggestions for reducing UQ Lakes congestion.

Yes that was me, mainly because the 130 was overcrowded. Now that I think about it, the 130 would have some of this streamlined treatment, too.

[/quote]
Is there much demand for this trip though?  If so, I can change my mind.
[/quote]

Maybe take the 196 once? there are quite a few people who get on after the city going outbound, while not a full bus load, the demand does exist. Not everyone drives to the shops.

[Mr X]

Another idea-
Perhaps express 196 (could be branded as 197  ) peak only routes could start at UQ, run down Gladstone Rd, then go via Merivale and Cordelia Sts to the Cultural Centre (current 202 route) and off to New Farm Park - Brunswick St via Ivory St tunnel?

[somebody]

Another idea-
Perhaps express 196 (could be branded as 197  ) peak only routes could start at UQ, run down Gladstone Rd, then go via Merivale and Cordelia Sts to the Cultural Centre (current 202 route) and off to New Farm Park - Brunswick St via Ivory St tunnel?

Not a fan.  Why not use the 109 to the Cultural Centre?

Interesting point about uni holidays being 4 months/year. You might have something on the 196 here, although I don't see the value of the extension.

[Bulimba30A]

I don't see why we need to make the system any more complex and add more same seat journeys from everywhere to everywhere. As others have mentioned, I'd only support a 159 etc. if it ran in peak hour only when there really are capacity constraints on the 109. In offpeak, I just don't see the point.

Perhaps every BUZ carrying more than 1.5 million people?  I'd except the 199 on the grounds that interchange at the Cultural is too easy and doesn't result in empty bus-km for the New Farm people.  And there is the 192 and CityCat for the West End people.  I'd prefer the 196 went to UQ rather than Fairfield, but it's not known that meets my criteria yet.

Do we really need a 389, 449, 339 etc..? As I said above, it just feeds the same seat journey mentality.

196 really doesn't need to service UQ, nor should it (I've said this before). This cuts off a link between Fairfield, Dutton Park and West End that has existed I believe since a bus route through this area was created. UQ has the 109 and the 192, and the 196 isn't designed as a UQ route. If anything, it should be extended to somewhere in Yeronga.
It also isn't that hard for the people along the 196 route to get off at the stops near Dutton Park and walk across the bridge to UQ.

I agree with these sentiments.  Does anyone know what the numbers for interchanging are at Buranda and Cultural Centre now?

[Mr X]

Not a fan.  Why not use the 109 to the Cultural Centre? (1)

Interesting point about uni holidays being 4 months/year. You might have something on the 196 here, although I don't see the value of the extension. (2)

1. True point. Was just an idea 
2. Uni students are a slack lot after all summer semester aside (I am assuming UQ lakes won't be at havoc during this), uni students are out from November - March and both June and July, when you consider the time gone with exams and exam revision (oo another month gone). Pretty much makes it 4-5 months.