RAIL - Back On Track Forum

New Bus Network Proposal now live for feedback: https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-and-transport/public-transport/brisbanes-new-bus-network

Looking good, I'm less certain about introducing more rockets though. Would rather Route 100 get bigger buses or more frequency than invent a rocket for that too.



They are keeping the GCL though, I believe Route 198 and 192 are surviving??

(I'll add to this list as I review)

Routes 99 and Below

- Don't really see the use for new Route 26. Better going from UQ Lakes to RBWH via the Story Bridge and W'Gabba. It is essentially duplicating Route 77, just on the surface now!!

100 Series Routes

- Route 174/175 merged (good) but should go via Buranda into the busway. The Route 61 Maroon CityGlider can cover Logan Road.

- Route 192 continues to service the CBD and is now extended into Yeronga. At minimum should be terminated at West End Ferry (those using the bus along Montague road to UQ can transfer to a ferry for a 1-stop trip).

- Route 196, no changes. Would be better to extend this into Yeronga and then terminate at Yeerongpilly. This will simplify the network greatly in this area.

- Route 198 survives in its entirety

- New Route 309 (portion of the existing 475) would be better running down James St and terminating at the Brisbane Powerhouse.

200 Series Routes

- Routes 200 + 222 + 204 duplication will be preserved, along with Route 205 operating hourly. Literally cost-neutral to only decide to run 222 along Old Cleveland Road, freeing up new services for Stanley and Cavendish Roads.

- Route 202 terminates at PA Hospital at Dutton Park. This should simply enter the busway and terminate at Park Road or UQ Lakes.

- Route 230 passengers won't see any service improvement.

- 232 Cannon Hill should be terminated at W'Gabba.

300 Series Routes

- Route 364 and 363 should be simplified and merged
- Route 359 passengers screwed, no new service for them.

400 Series Routes

- Centenary Suburbs black hole preserved as well. Many routes from the Western Suburbs that should be terminated at Indooroopilly will still continue to the CBD.

- Route 417 continues to the CBD via Coronation Drive. Should be terminated at Toowong.

500 Series

- Didn't touch Great Circle Line bus route, so fails to amalgamate 590 and 599/598 along common sections of their routes

Other

- A lot of cost-neutral low-hanging fruit hasn't been picked IMHO. Sorry, but there is still a lot of inefficiency and money being spent on protecting duplication here.

- Clear need for more Metro buses out to Indooroopilly, Chermside and Carindale to further simplify the network.

Facebook ...

Seems like half the document is missing or is nothing happening in the north??

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1579286328025677825

Brisbane's New Bus Network guide (PDF - 29Mb)

> https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022-10/20221010-Brisbanes-New-Bus-Network-Guide.pdf

Quote from: #Metro on October 10, 2022, 11:29:27 AMLiterally cost-neutral to only decide to run 222 along Old Cleveland Road, freeing up new services for Stanley and Cavendish Roads.

I wouldn't say it's cost neutral; you'd have to increase 222 frequency to compensate for both capacity and for service quality of combined frequency. There's also the question of the 200 and 222 not exactly duplicating each other. About a quarter of the 200's activity is from stops not shared with the 222, though if you exclude Gabba-city patronage (and v/v), it's more like a fifth.

Northside looks to be status quo. I wonder why all the top poorest patronage routes are 300 or night link services...

QuoteI wouldn't say it's cost neutral; you'd have to increase 222 frequency to compensate for both capacity and for service quality of combined frequency. There's also the question of the 200 and 222 not exactly duplicating each other. About a quarter of the 200's activity is from stops not shared with the 222, though if you exclude Gabba-city patronage (and v/v), it's more like a fifth.
QUOTE

I think only one BUZ is required. Between the remaining BUZ and 204, stops can be covered IMHO.

Totally uninspiring not the "revolution" we need in SEQ!

Back to the drawing board! I love route 123 that does a loop'dy loop! Seriously? BCC hand in your bus planning license immediately

Page 19 of the Guide:
"Redesigning suburban routes
Suburban bus routes will be redesigned to
connect customers to a high-frequency metro
or busway service.
By reducing the number of suburban buses using the
busways into the city, we can ease inner-city congestion
and free up busway capacity for more metro and
other high-frequency services. This will allow us to
redistribute services to provide coverage in local areas."

Well if they can do that for the ' Metro bi-artics ' then they should be able to do the same for rail?

Far, far, far too tame.

I expect they will pull back from even these limited changes.

When I look at this review, the feeling which arises is one of disappointment and distress.

To focus on the positives:
- Frequent service down Logan Rd (new 175), Caven and through Salisbury (new 125) is very welcome
- BCC is attempting feederisation of low-frequency services (115, new 182)
- BCC has culled some rockets on the southside
- Some good ideas floating around - Route 205, 309 - to provide service to areas which at the current time, have appalling connections.

Now the negatives:
- Most of the 4XX routes turn 25 next year (that is 25 years with no change), which is just embarrassing
- Plenty of low-hanging fruit left in tact and obvious solutions not acted on - e.g. Route 107 remains instead of extending the 196 BUZ, no higher frequency into Bulimba
- Minimal reform on the northside
- No additional BUZ routes outside of the 1XX series routes
- New BUZ services on the southside run via CCB - isn't the purpose of Metro to ensure only high-frequency services still use the busway?
- Retention of Old Cleveland Rd waste (200, 204, 222) while the route 205 and 210 remain as-is
- Missed opportunity to provide a decent bus connection down William St / George St to Parliament. Instead a bunch of P-rockets remain, the loop and that's it.

There are many other missed opportunities which come to mind, but these have all been summed up in other documents released on here throughout the years.

It's almost 10 years on since we last attempted bus reform and this is what Brisbane gets. It's nowhere near as bad as the 2014 review - which was a waste of time bar the 66+109 combination - but I just feel an overwhelming sense of disappointment that:
a) This is a missed opportunity; and
b) The increase in frequent service in Brisbane is nowhere near what is required to get Brisbane Olympic-ready.

Fortunately I live on a BUZ route and near other modes - so this won't affect me personally, but it's a damn shame for so many others in Brisbane.

PS A moment of silence for the Route 161 Paris Hilton Rocket which will be feederised - may everybody's favourite waste rocket rest in peace...

https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?msg=122020

The proposed termination point of the 370 is now on the corner of Edward street. It needs to continue along via Eagle and Mar streets and terminate at Albert Street to connect with Cross River Rail services. Then loop back via Adelaide street as a new outbound run.   

Same goes with the 375 they seem to be terminating these buses outside Macarthur Central Shopping Centre.

QuotePS A moment of silence for the Route 161 Paris Hilton Rocket which will be feederised - may everybody's favourite waste rocket rest in peace...

https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?msg=122020

There is one forum member here who won't appreciate losing a direct BCC rocket from their front door... (joke)

More of Brisbane City Council's "not broken" bus network
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2013/03/more-of-brisbane-city-councils-not.html

Interactive map: good tech but let down by route colour choices and not showing rail by default.

The new 125, 175 and 185 daytime frequents are good, though by rights the 175 at least would be a full BUZ.

The declaration of intent to expand Metro services to Chermside and Carindale in the future is good. That expansion will drive reforms on those corridors (absent in this review).

"No changes to the Great Circle Line" just about sums up how little other change there really is here.

My partner lived in Fairfield for the better part of a decade and is broadly supportive of the Yeronga changes so... cautiously optimistic there?

A number of interesting changes in the CBD:

* Most northern and western services to terminate at QSBS (no more Hope St layover with Metro); 333 picks up Gabba termination from the 340
* Maroon Glider to use George St westbound (apparently it's more important to share outbound stops with the non-385 services?) but stays in KGS eastbound for 222 colocation
* Establishing this Mary St corridor for the new daytime-frequents plus the Gold Glider

So a pleasant suprise at least is the 175, 180 and 185 are getting sorted out....Sort of.

185 will go direct along Newham Rd, Cavendish Rd then Stanley St. 4bph weekday offpeak.

175 will go direct along Logan Rd. 4bph weekday offpeak.

180 as is, but really should go along nursery rd.

The 205 is becoming a full time route. This is a good basis for the eastern since it should be the mainline route to the south of OCR though odd it doesn't service the interchange.

192, i can sort of see the mindset, they want to give all the students on the south side of the river a direct service into UQ but it seems a bit messy.

Some of my thoughts and views on the new bus network:

* Definitely a positive that the 205 is now an all-day service; however, it is a missed opportunity that it doesn't stop at Carindale SC. It had the merit to omit the stop while it was an express pre-paid service, but now that it has an all-day frequency, it's lost all that merit.
* Route 28 should really be extended to Coorparoo SC. This just seems like a no-brainer to me. At Coorparoo, the 28 can simply mimic the Maroon CityGlider and circle the block before returning to UQ Lakes to complete its loop.
* The 204 can absorb the additional stops which are left unserviced after the omission of the 200 BUZ. Those stops already seem like they should be observed by an all-stopper, not an express service. Plus, it'd add further variability between the 204 and 222.
On the Carina side of things, the 212 can absorb the 204's stops (at the Clem Jones Centre) which would allow the 204 to observe the now unserviced stops left from the 200's omission.

All my other opinions have already been expressed by the other members of this forum as far as I'm aware.

Oh and the 195 should definitely also face the axe. There is simply no need. 

Where are all these frequency upgrades on the north routes? everything stays hourly?

Time for a complete overhaul.  Thanks BCC nice attempt but Yer No thanks

 https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14588.0

I think the easiest way to get network reform and please all parties involved is to advocate for extension of Brisbane metro to Carindale, Indooroopilly and Chermside.

Just putting a Metro bus on Coronation drive would cause rearrangement and restructuring of all Western Brisbane bus routes. Similarly with Carindale and Gympie Road.

Who wants to wait another 10 years until the next review? I don't.

Yep, Metro expansion to Chermside and Carindale will drive some reform on those corridors (probably part of the reason why there is minimal change there).

You can fix many of the Northside problems without the need of metro buses. That's the thing. There are 2 railway lines. Lots of opportunities for feeders. Key corridor routes. Remember not everyone on the northside goes to the city when you have massive employment hubs of Chermside Westfield and TPCH medical complex. But it requires gutting a lot of routes which will provide political headaches because it goes against everything BCC heavily campaigned for during the Translink review. BCC needs Metro as an excuse to sell a network review. Just look at all the low usage routes. They are all Northside routes that have a frequency of 60mins or worse. The 2 hour routes don't even make the list which says something

It's interesting that the Northern Transitway opens early next year too, with potential changes to route alignments and stopping patterns. Yet, this draft network doesn't even see even the most basic improvements to services up here. https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/projects/northern-transitway

Especially with the 340 proposed to terminate at QSBS instead of the Gabba, I can't see any good reason for it not to be truncated at Chermside. Drop the 370 frequency to 30 mins off-peak, let the 333 pick up additional stops and run it every 7-10 mins off-peak/weekends.

On the subject of CBD termini, I'm really not a fan of the 330/340 proposed to be stopping at QSBS and 333 at KGS. Also, having the 61 (to Ashgrove) and 385 (to The Gap) have split stops through the City can't be ideal either. I think it's so much more important for 61 and 385 to share rather than 61 and 380/381. If anything, the 380/381 should share routing/stops with the 350/352.

The way they have northern/western rockets loop around the City (Edward - Charlotte - George) makes little sense either (e.g. P331, P343, P443, P455). It means they will be stopping on surface streets literally on top of the all day routes in the busway below. Isn't the point of these northern/western rockets to provide somewhat unique coverage of the eastern CBD (Riverside/QUT area)? It's just going to make PM rockets like the P343 even more useless and under-utilised than current, as people will just walk an extra 50m to head underground to the more frequent and more reliable BUZ services...

Whilst I understand the capacity argument to an extent, but if CBD stop capacity was such an issue, then why are the 425, 430, 435, 453, 454, 460 still running into QSBS? Let alone anything running along Coro Dr except for the 412, 444 and 450.

And why the 198 still exists is beyond me.

Does anyone have the web skills to scrape the kml data from the interactive map?

Quote from: Gazza on October 10, 2022, 19:23:10 PMDoes anyone have the web skills to scrape the kml data from the interactive map?

I'll have a quick look to see if there's any API pings happening.

Route 26

QuoteWe are proposing a new route, Route 26 – Griffith University station to RBWH station, which will operate every 10-15 minutes in both directions during peak periods. This route aims to provide direct connectivity from the South East Busway to Fortitude Valley, bypassing the inner busway and CBD.

The benefits of this new route will include:
• more trips to and from Kangaroo Point
• a faster connecting service for customers travelling on the southern and eastern BUZ routes to Fortitude Valley
•  a faster connecting service for customers travelling from the north to the southside stations (such as Woolloongabba, Buranda and Griffith University)

Do we really need another "new" bus route 26?  

Just get some of those buses from 29 UQ Lakes + 234 over the Story Bridge + Random 364 Herston buses + 77, put them in a cauldron and amalgamate. 

Quote from: Cazza on October 10, 2022, 18:50:31 PMAlso, having the 61 (to Ashgrove) and 385 (to The Gap) have split stops through the City can't be ideal either. I think it's so much more important for 61 and 385 to share rather than 61 and 380/381. If anything, the 380/381 should share routing/stops with the 350/352.

Yes, these co-location decisions seem quite bizarre. I must be missing something.

They justify moving the 61 to George St/Roma St to co-locate with Ashgrove buses even though the 379(389)/3801/381 travel down Waterworks to get to Ashgrove Central while the 61 goes down Latrobe Tce and Jubilee Tce to get there.

As you say, in doing so they move it from the bus it shares far more of its route with, the 385, which remains via KGS and Roma St Bus Station.

They also have moved the 350 into the Roma St Bus Station away from the 352 on Roma St.

So in summary:
- Made the 61 route more confusing by having an unnecessary difference in the inbound/outbound city route and stops.
- Split the 61 away from its currently co-located 385 with which it shares the whole Caxton/Give/Latrobe section.
- Co-located the 61 instead with the Ashgrove buses, which only share one stop at Ashgrove Central.
- Bizarrely justified this by calling out city bus stop co-location as the reason despite making it worse.
- Removed the very frequent 61's high-quality connection with Roma St Station.
- Removed the actual beneficial co-location of the 350 on Roma St by moving it into the Roma St Bus Station away from its partner 352. And away from the other Waterworks buses 379/380/381.

I get they may be moving the 350 into Roma St Bus Station to provide a high-quality connection with the metro, but why you would move the very high fequency 61 out of the biggest interchange in Brisbane (in one direction only) to co-locate with a bus that goes a totally different way makes no sense to me.

Quote from: Gazza on October 10, 2022, 19:23:10 PMDoes anyone have the web skills to scrape the kml data from the interactive map?

BCC is using Mapbox for the website, which doesn't seem to use KML. I have managed to get a JSON file with all the routes (CURRENT and PROPOSED); however, it isn't in a format that will be very useful. You'd have to write a program to convert the current format into a useable format. Alas here's a link to the JSON.

Quote from: RowBro on October 10, 2022, 20:17:44 PM

Quote from: Gazza on October 10, 2022, 19:23:10 PMDoes anyone have the web skills to scrape the kml data from the interactive map?

BCC is using Mapbox for the website, which doesn't seem to use KML. I have managed to get a JSON file with all the routes (CURRENT and PROPOSED); however, it isn't in a format that will be very useful. You'd have to write a program to convert the current format into a useable format. Alas here's a link to the JSON.

Actually... I lie. It's in geojson which is actually a standard format for it. A simple google search should bring up some tools to look at it. It is very bad resolution however... there must be something on the website which makes the routes follow the roads.

I've also scraped the other data (route details, route changes, and stops). You can find that here.

Having skimmed through the changes, overall, I'm pleasantly suprised with route design changes in the areas that have been touched (Having heard suggestions that the changes would be a lot more minor). It's certainly not perfect, but in my opinion it is a lot stronger base to work from than that of 2013. There's a lot of little things in there which I am very happy to see.

What I am disappointed about is the off-peak/weekend frequency of local Metro feeder services which I think will be this network's downfall unless they address it. Sure they will work fine inbound (low freq -> high freq), but the reverse just doesn't work. No one is realistically going to transfer at a middle of no-where busway stations to an local hourly route. If we were talking a shopping centre or some other place that is a destination in its own right than this would be different; the route is still generally useful without connecting, if connecting works great, but the route doesn't rely on it. At least with an hourly train feeder, our trains are clearly timetabled services and you can plan the train to catch, but that's just not how the busway works. If they are going to continue treating these routes this way then we need to acknowledge that they essentially useless token coverage routes. There's a difference between a coverage route and a feeder route and mixing them just doesn't work - connecting doesn't work on low frequency.

I just can't imagine sitting at Greenslopes/HPW/GU stations waiting for an hourly 112, 113, 115, 123, 155, 161, 172, etc. Something happens and you miss your connection or it is cancelled or doesn't show up what are you meant to be doing? It's hardly turn-up and go when you need to exactly plan your timetabless outbound Metro service else be stranded. 


To quote a few sections of the recent BB4BNE report I've written with Cazza posted in in the member's section:

"A-2 Leverage the Network Effect (Make Connecting Attractive)
The largely infrequent, unintegrated nature of Brisbane's bus routes means that journeys to
destinations off one's local route are rarely viable by public transport. As such, there's a high
resistance to transfer between services as many existing journeys would become unviable if not being
'single-seat'. Similarly, high frequency, express and connector type routes are handicapped by the
ability of other routes to connect or feed; an otherwise useful route in a network is useless if you can't
easily connect to and from it.
...
The network effect comes into play as each additional improvement to either a route's frequency or
ease of connection exponentially increases the number of viable trips in a snowballing fashion; the
whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

"D1.3 Key Interchange Points
Key Interchange Points (KIPs) are locations where the network and infrastructure are designed to
promote quality connections between routes. These locations have branded infrastructure and are
ideally co-located with notable destinations, such as shops, hospitals, or universities. This allows for
the network to be logically feeding into these key destinations, whilst facilitating attractive onward
connections."

Quote from: newbris on October 10, 2022, 20:17:15 PM

Quote from: Cazza on October 10, 2022, 18:50:31 PM- Removed the actual beneficial co-location of the 350 on Roma St by moving it into the Roma St Bus Station away from its partner 352. And away from the other Waterworks buses 379/380/381.

- Removed the actual beneficial co-location of the 350 on Roma St by moving it into the Roma St Bus Station away from its partner 352. And away from the other Waterworks buses 379/380/381.

The 350/352 currently use Roma Street busway OB, it's IB that still uses the street stops.

Ideally, they should be getting as many buses off Roma St itself as possible. The 375(387)/379(389)380/381 should all do the same routing as the 350 (Edward - Queen terminus - Ann), but all service Roma Street Station in both directions. That way you'd have all routes nicely collated, plus not face the congested surface George/Roma streets and long OB light cycle times at Adelaide/George and Countess/Roma St intersections.

That way, the 61 also won't need to be thrown out onto the street for whatever weird reason.

Well, it's better than nothing.

QuoteWhat I am disappointed about is the off-peak/weekend frequency of local Metro feeder services which I think will be this network's downfall unless they address it.

This comes back to comments I made earlier in another place about the actual capacity of metro buses.

If you have a bus feed a train like in the TTC Toronto model or it's later Perth model, you are going from bus to train (larger vehicle) so space isn't an issue.

At higher frequencies on feeders the metro bus fills up to capacity. It can only take 150 pax/65 to 85 pax = 1.76 to 2.3 standard buses.

Which is why conversion of the busway to Sydney- or Vancouver- style rail based metro is the next logical step for the SE Busway IMHO.

(It also explains why they invented weird route 26. They don't have capacity!!)

A TTC train might have a capacity of 1000 pax, so it's transfer absorption capacity is far higher at 1000/85 = 11.76 busses.

In contrast, Brisbane metro capacity is around 150 x 30 to 60 = 4500 pphd and maybe 9000 if you really push it.

So it's not ideal for absorbing high transfer volumes. Imagine if they truncated a BUZ into this, it would be full and have to complete its journey running express and full into the CBD.

It's not more than the actual busway capacity that already exists (11-18,000 pphd).

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1579552757425790976

Straight off the bat, they should extend the 115, 132 and 135 to Browns Plains from what I can see on face value.  It just should happen if money permits.

Also, a bit disappointing that they aren't taking advantage of connecting with as many railway stations as possible on the Beenleigh line with these proposed routes.

From what I've heard, BCC have been told that it must be cost neutral for any changes as the State isn't throwing any extra money at this project, probably on political grounds.

Also heard that these proposed changes are 'very finely balanced' so is unlikely to really change that much if any despite the consultation, and that they are worried about a repeat of 2013, so they really don't want to rock the boat too much.  Which again is quite disappointing, but not surprising.

Anyway, will see how this pans out.