RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Quote from: Cazza on October 10, 2022, 21:21:15 PM

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.

The problem is when the 350/352 did use Roma Street station on the inbound, car users quite often got confused and thought the on ramp from Countess Street to the bus way was the turn off for the Countess St/Roma Street turn and ended up on the bus way instead of Roma Street, hence they eventually closed it off for everyone except emergencies.

I understand that was the case, but the bus gate has remained open for a number of years now as far as I can tell.

Also Re. Browns Plains, I'd send the 130 there before any other local route.

Metro Re. the 26, it's actually quite a smart route, just not seemingly executed correctly. The goal of it is to provide a core (peak hour) cross town route, connecting the SEB (pretty much all Southside and east side routes) directly to the Valley, as well as the Valley to Northside services from RBWH. This is to replace a number of Southside services running all the way through to the Valley. I've had something similar in my network for a number of years now.

Whilst I'm not sure why they aren't running it direct through the Valley (e.g Gipps, Wickham, Brunswick NB, Brunswick, Wickham, Warner, Ann, Gipps SB), especially if their Gold SillyCity Glider is covering the St Paul's Tce/RNA area, it will still help with providing a fast(ish) direct connection to the Valley from the most of the Southside. Not having it run all-day seems to be quite a loss though.

I don't know why you want to extend the 29 across the bridge to the Valley, Herston (and Ashgrove?). The role of the 29 is to provide a high frequency, direct UQ connection for Woolloongabba services, as well as extra capacity to/from Boggo Rd. These high frequencies ensure 66 (M2), 139, 169 and 209 services aren't full with passengers just going to Boggo Rd, whilst longer haul passengers are left behind.

Extending the 29 any further (especially through the Valley) will completely ruin its reliability and consistent services, negating it's existence. If you want a better cross town route here, work on the 26. The 29 is shouldn't be extended anywhere.

Quote from: Cazza on October 11, 2022, 07:49:44 AMI understand that was the case, but the bus gate has remained open for a number of years now as far as I can tell.

Also Re. Browns Plains, I'd send the 130 there before any other local

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the lights onto the busway are on permanent red, meaning that the only way to get on the busway from Countess St is to have an emergency vehicle with lights and sirens or buses being authorised to pass through there by bus control.

I guess they kept it open as it's cheaper to do it that way than using retractable pylons to block the path.

In regards to the 130, it'd be a hard sell to tell those on Illaweena Street that they would be potentially losing a high frequency city service (130) without having to do a U turn, or continue down Illaweena St to Wembly and Browns Plains Rd, while 115, 132 and 135 is currently and proposed to terminate in an area that isn't a major attraction and is more direct.

With the feeders, isn't that sort of par for the course in Suburbia?

SEQ has a lot of 1 hour feeders into rail, I guess the idea is you would use the JP and get on a metro that gets you to your interchange station on time?

QuoteMetro Re. the 26, it's actually quite a smart route, just not seemingly executed correctly. The goal of it is to provide a core (peak hour) cross town route, connecting the SEB (pretty much all Southside and east side routes) directly to the Valley, as well as the Valley to Northside services from RBWH. This is to replace a number of Southside services running all the way through to the Valley. I've had something similar in my network for a number of years now.

They can just transfer to the BlueCityGlider, Route 300, 199 and trains. Do we really need to invent another new route? Probably not.

QuoteI don't know why you want to extend the 29 across the bridge to the Valley, Herston (and Ashgrove?). The role of the 29 is to provide a high frequency, direct UQ connection for Woolloongabba services, as well as extra capacity to/from Boggo Rd. These high frequencies ensure 66 (M2), 139, 169 and 209 services aren't full with passengers just going to Boggo Rd, whilst longer haul passengers are left behind.

Extending the 29 any further (especially through the Valley) will completely ruin its reliability and consistent services, negating it's existence. If you want a better cross town route here, work on the 26. The 29 is shouldn't be extended anywhere.

Similar arguments were presented against the merger of 66+109.

But Route 66 is being removed and replaced with MetroBuses 1.7x the capacity. Those smaller routes exist for load balancing reasons. With increased capacity on the MetroBuses, they can now be modified. Lots of students live in Kangaroo Point, Valley etc - these are some of the highest density places in Brisbane.

(It is also possible to get passengers to connect to the SE busway stops, it just requires smart use of the O'Keefe street portals)

Quote from: STB on October 11, 2022, 06:27:58 AMFrom 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.

Yeah, all the suburban changes have got that cost-neutral feeling to them.

QuoteYeah, all the suburban changes have got that cost-neutral feeling to them.

- Cost-neutral is inappropriate if waste in other areas of the city, and even inside the study area (e.g. Old Cleveland Rd, Route 198) are not being converted to useful service. Can you believe after three bus reviews Route 198 will still be around??

- Cost-neutral is also inappropriate if the city is growing. Funding should scale with inflation and population growth. Keeping an even budget when the number of people is rising is a net cut per capita, its actually going backwards.

- Is the competing road budget cost-neutral? If it is not, and shows positive growth, then this is a net pull of passengers out of PT.

QuoteThey can just transfer to the BlueCityGlider, Route 300, 199 and trains. Do we really need to invent another new route? Probably not.

300, 199 etc all serve a different catchment areas though.

The foremost reason for having the 26 IMO is that Main Street Kangaroo Point is dreadfully underserviced for a major thoroughfare.

At present, the only service is the 234, and even that follows an awkward routing down and under the bridge via the Storey Bridge Hotel. https://jp.translink.com.au/plan-your-journey/timetables/Bus/T/234

If it proves popular in peak the 26 should go HF all day.

Quote from: STB on October 11, 2022, 08:08:22 AMCorrect me if I'm wrong, but I think the lights onto the busway are on permanent red, meaning that the only way to get on the busway from Countess St is to have an emergency vehicle with lights and sirens or buses being authorised to pass through there by bus control.

I had to stop here on an OB bus few years ago so I don't believe so (unless it's been changed since). Plus, they are needed to be operating for whenever Caxton/Countess St contra-flow is closed (for Suncorp events) for the 61 and 385 to get back onto the busway.

Quote from: STB on October 11, 2022, 08:08:22 AMIn regards to the 130, it'd be a hard sell to tell those on Illaweena Street that they would be potentially losing a high frequency city service (130) without having to do a U turn, or continue down Illaweena St to Wembly and Browns Plains Rd, while 115, 132 and 135 is currently and proposed to terminate in an area that isn't a major attraction and is more direct.

I'd much rather the core BUZ route be modified to open up upwards of 20,000 people along it between Algester and Parkinson to the busy hub of Browns Plains, than a few hundred people make a bit of noise for a few weeks (also noting that the 153 is covers this area, plus whatever improved full time 132 or 135 type route). The majority of boardings at Illaweena/Waterstone is from the school, with the majority of Illaweena/Tamarisk still within reasonable catchment of Beaudesert Rd stops (providing more direct services).

Quote from: #Metro on October 11, 2022, 08:14:30 AMThey can just transfer to the BlueCityGlider, Route 300, 199 and trains.

Of course people can just transfer, that's literally the point of what I'm saying! Have a route with major northside/southside interchanges on either end and connect them to a key destination in the middle. High bi-directional demand and fast trips into the heart of the Valley.

Quote from: #Metro on October 11, 2022, 08:14:30 AMDo we really need to invent another new route? Probably not.

Considering it takes 8 mins to get from Valley to Gabba via the Story Bridge, but 22 mins via the current direct services, I'd say there's pretty considerable time savings to be made here. Plus, with buses commonly taking 20-30 mins to run the length of Adelaide St during peak times, I'd say that it's more than worth it, especially if Council were to pour millions into branding the service as a Glider.

Quote from: #Metro on October 11, 2022, 08:14:30 AMSimilar arguments were presented against the merger of 66+109.

Completely different scenario here.

Quote from: #Metro on October 11, 2022, 08:14:30 AMBut Route 66 is being removed and replaced with MetroBuses 1.7x the capacity. Those smaller routes exist for load balancing reasons. With increased capacity on the MetroBuses, they can now be modified. Lots of students live in Kangaroo Point, Valley etc - these are some of the highest density places in Brisbane.

(It is also possible to get passengers to connect to the SE busway stops, it just requires smart use of the O'Keefe street portals)

With an increase in mode share which we are all pushing for, M2 services every 5 mins won't be able to take the load alone, especially with the considerable time savings and potential demand the green bridge here brings. Some sort of short running service will be required to provide that capacity the Metro alone won't be able to achieve.

Having a Route 26 type thing which connects the SEB and Kangaroo Point/Valley kills 2 birds with one stone - core southside/eastside to Valley route AND provides direct connections to UQ Lakes services for KP and Valley students. Compare this to an extended 29 which predominantly caters for uni student demand, which is quite sporadic and non-existent for 3-4 months of the year.

QuoteOf course people can just transfer, that's literally the point of what I'm saying! Have a route with major northside/southside interchanges on either end and connect them to a key destination in the middle. High bi-directional demand and fast trips into the heart of the Valley.

I think it should just originate from UQ Lakes, not Griffith. Oh, and it is peak-hour only, so rather pointless as it won't exist in the off-peak or on weekends. Will exist for about an hour in the morning and an hour in the afternoon. It's just like Route 77 only worse.

QuoteHaving a Route 26 type thing which connects the SEB and Kangaroo Point/Valley kills 2 birds with one stone - core southside/eastside to Valley route AND provides direct connections to UQ Lakes services for KP and Valley students. Compare this to an extended 29 which predominantly caters for uni student demand, which is quite sporadic and non-existent for 3-4 months of the year.

Yes, but with a bus going to the Valley from UQ Lakes, all of those things can be achieved without a Route 26 (which also won't exist outside of peak, unlike a full time combined route to UQ, which will). If you use the O'Keefe Street portals cleverly, you can also get it to connect to the SEB at Buranda.

Quote from: #Metro on October 11, 2022, 10:16:26 AMI think it should just originate from UQ Lakes, not Griffith. Oh, and it is peak-hour only, so rather pointless as it won't exist in the off-peak or on weekends. Will exist for about an hour in the morning and an hour in the afternoon. It's just like Route 77 only worse.

As Gazza said and I've had for a long while now, it would ideally run as a core all-day service. See my Route 62 as a potential design for this core route, as well as my modified Gold CityGlider (route 191), which could even run to RBWH too: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/edit?hl=en&mid=1XQA5O0l8ufcUrq0460sFl8E-e-0A4Jet&ll=-27.469758329483202%2C153.0259962513428&z=14

Quote from: #Metro on October 11, 2022, 10:16:26 AMYes, but with a bus going to the Valley from UQ Lakes, all of those things can be achieved without a Route 26 (which also won't exist outside of peak, unlike a full time combined route to UQ, which will). If you use the O'Keefe Street portals cleverly, you can also get it to connect to the SEB at Buranda.

I agree the O'Keefe portals have potential to be much more effectively utilised, which credit to this BCC proposal as they have actually done. But the issue with a 29 via Buranda is platform stopping consistency with other services.

For 29 southbound services (to UQ), you can only have a same stop transfer to SE Busway services (P2) OR consolidated UQ services (P1), not both. Likewise for northbound, you can only have same stop transfers to OB services (P2) OR same stop transfers from IB services (P1), not both.

A route 26 type thing doesn't have this issue, as same stop transfers are maintained for both the IB and OB directions.

A 26-type thing and 29 have much too different roles to combine the routes, especially if the 26 were to operate as a key cross town route linking 2 major interchange hubs on either side of the river and the core Valley area.

^^ I quite like the idea of the Route 26 for the positives listed above (better services for KP, a direct connection between the inner south and FV), but I would question the need for it to run all the way down to Griffith and I would question it being a Peak Only service. I would rather see it truncated at Woolloongabba and run as a high frequency all day service.

If you had the 26 running all day and sorted out the 232 (make a Bulimba Glider) and 227, Kangaroo Point would largely be sorted (with some luck, so would Bulimba).

QuoteAs Gazza said and I've had for a long while now, it would ideally run as a core all-day service. See my Route 62 as a potential design for this core route, as well as my modified Gold CityGlider (route 191), which could even run to RBWH too: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/edit?hl=en&mid=1XQA5O0l8ufcUrq0460sFl8E-e-0A4Jet&ll=-27.469758329483202%2C153.0259962513428&z=14

They have already imposed a cost-neutral condition on this network, which means converting a peak-route to all day will be unlikely.

Cazza, the main difference between your Yellow CityGlider and my route is that yours originates at Langlands Park, and mine at UQ Lakes. Otherwise its more or less the same for the rest of the route. I actually think your Yellow route is good and would be much more preferable than this Route 26.

QuoteFor 29 southbound services (to UQ), you can only have a same stop transfer to SE Busway services (P2) OR consolidated UQ services (P1), not both. Likewise for northbound, you can only have same stop transfers to OB services (P2) OR same stop transfers from IB services (P1), not both.

Well, there is an overhead walkway, which passengers can use. I'm not quite seeing your point. Buses can arrive at both platforms at Buranda busway. You just have to use both portals on O'Keefe Street (there are two) in combination and not use the Harrogate St tunnel (the main Eastern busway entrance).

They will have to put in a turning lane at Portal #2 (might just be paint & resignalling), but I don't see an obstacle to doing that. Intersection is signalised, and works at Buranda for Brisbane Metro platform lengthening have already started, they can include it with that.

From UQ:

Eastern Busway > PA Hospital > PA Hospital Portal (near Wolseley St) > O'Keefe St Portal > SEB CityBound Platform (Buranda) > W'Gabba > Valley

To UQ: Valley > W'Gabba > SEB SouthBound Platform (Buranda), O'Keefe St Portal, PA Hospital Portal (near Wolseley St), PA Hospital > UQ Lakes

QuoteA 26-type thing and 29 have much too different roles to combine the routes, especially if the 26 were to operate as a key cross town route linking 2 major interchange hubs on either side of the river and the core Valley area.

This is essentially the same criticism levelled at Route 66+109, with similar wording. The 66/109 buses served different catchment areas, had different demographics, ran on different days of the week, one had semester variations, the other didn't... combined eventually and now the busiest bus route in the entire network.

QuoteThey have already imposed a cost-neutral condition on this network, which means converting a peak-route to all day will be unlikely.

Ok the current round of changes is cost neutral, but I think part of the aim should be getting the right routes in place on the right corridors, with the view that when funding becomes available, we can upgrade these routes rather than doing another round of pasting things in or changing them.



***********

So it seems like a given that this is really just a review for the southside. I'd love to see a full review, but if we can keep the noise down by avoiding doing the whole city at once (The Auckland changes were done over several years) and get this working well, its some decent progress compared to the nothing weve had since 2013.

What I have done is plot out the routes that will offer HF daytime frequency on Weekdays on the SE sector.
Why not the BUZ standard?

I have done this on purpose. Sadly the HF services on the rail network are not frequent on weekend, nor are the frequent routes on the GC.
And without significant investment network wide this isn't changing anytime soon, so I'm focusing on this for the time being, with the view that better weekend services may come in the future.
It makes comparison easier.

With the addition of off peak frequency on the 125, 175 and 185 you can see there is now pretty comprehensive HF coverage.

But the eastern corridor is still not great. The 200, 222 and 204 overlap a lot, so the areas between OCR and the Cleveland line miss out.

In order to fully cover the area better the following changes should happen

-Extend the 196 by 2km along Hyde Rd. This would cover the entire Yeronga peninsular, with the 192 extension providing 'coverage'
-Run the 204 along Stanley Rd and Macrossan Ave to better cover this area
-Prioritise upgrades to the 205 to better service camp hill. Run via Creek Rd and pine Mountain Road to better cover the area.
-Possibly a more local frequent feeder along Fernvale Rd to fill in the gap around Tarrigindi reservoir.

My view is that if the bones of the all day frequent are right then it doesn't matter so much if the coverage routes are less direct or infrequent.

QuoteOk the current round of changes is cost neutral, but I think part of the aim should be getting the right routes in place on the right corridors, with the view that when funding becomes available, we can upgrade these routes rather than doing another round of pasting things in or changing them.

We need to have regular, rolling bus reviews. This idea that we do one, and then wait 10...20 years to look at them again (and say "Cost Neutral" for that entire period elapsed) has to go. Imagine if they did that with roads? Unthinkable, right?

QuoteFor 29 southbound services (to UQ), you can only have a same stop transfer to SE Busway services (P2) OR consolidated UQ services (P1), not both. Likewise for northbound, you can only have same stop transfers to OB services (P2) OR same stop transfers from IB services (P1), not both.

Ok, I see it now. You want all to UQ services to be on the same platform (e.g. 139, 169 on the Citybound Platform, and all away from UQ services on the Logan-Bound Platform.) Introducing a UQ-Valley service will mean that some UQ bound services will appear on the Logan-bound platform, in addition to the City-Bound platform, at Buranda.

Although this is less than ideal, it can be mitigated. Train stations also have this issue (e.g. Circular Quay in Sydney). They solve it by having PID displays with "Next train to Central" and the departure/arrivals listed and the platform.

Something similar for Buranda could be arranged with "Next bus to UQ" and the platform to go to.

The purpose of the 29 is to shuttle people to/from Boggo Rd. Everything else is super ancillary. (Though the 209 did originally go through the Gabba.)

It could be terminated at Boggo Rd if there was a turnaround facility, with pretty minimal impact. Especially now that the Gabba station is going to be converted to inline, and with CRR.

Leave everything hourly. Continue to expand Park 'n Rides.
Claim that "people prefer to park and ride" as justification.

Hey forgive me for asking, but what's the problem with having both the 26 and 29 as separate routes?

As far as I know, the only overlap is between the junctions and Gabba, which equates to 1.5km, or about 90 seconds of run time. So is there any tangible saving in combining them?

Many things become possible if one just look outside the box. Yes right now it is a shuttle route, here is what it could be instead.

If we are going to build a network, especially a genuine cross-town bus network its probably a good idea to (a) make the route run all day in both directions, and (b) link many interesting patronage generators together.

Route 29 UQ Lakes - Valley - RBWH (Shown as Route 334 in this model)

Destinations
- UQ Lakes (Second largest destination after Brisbane CBD)
- Park Road Railway (major rail hub)
- PA Hospital (very large hospital)
- Buranda Busway (connects to All SE Busway stops and Cleveland line) (Use both O'Keefe Street Portals)
- Wooloongabba Busway (Cross River Rail, Eastern Suburbs)
- Kangaroo Point (highest density suburb in Brisbane, lots of students)
- Fortitude Valley Rail station (accessible in both directions from FV Station/Brunswick St) (All northside rail destinations except those using the CRR Tunnel)
- RBWH (Hospital, all Northern Busway bus routes)
- Ashgrove Interchange (onward connections in all 4 directions)

^ Something like this is going to be waaay more useful in building a genuine multi-directional anywhere to anywhere network than a handful of Route 26 buses to the Valley one way in peak from Griffith that don't exist outside of the peak hour. Johnno, what do you reckon? Is this a mode shifter route?

The review/redesign fails to address the reality that a significant % of trips in SEQ/Brisbane are cross-town.  Just look at the traffic on the road moving east-west and north-south that go nowhere near the CBD.  This review as we know fails to integrate to rail properly and is still CBD centric. The design forces everyone into the city...always has and has significant gaps between routes forcing people into the Inner City.  They say the best way to see the integration of pblic transport is to turn it sideways?

It also has routes that wander all over the shop and do loops on themselves. The Griffith Uni detour is just crazy. Any plan needs to incorporate separated bus lanes on the major roads (and stick to them) and needs to move on form the 400m walk to the synergies of bike and transit (800-1000m).

Also the routes numbers are completely illegible to the novice (aka the people we want to switch from driving to public transport).  The 125, 175, 185, 200, 222,204, and it just goes on and on.  People use our roads as way finding. Us them to way find their bus route too.  Even the Metro 1 stopping at Roma Street is so CBD centric.

Using "cost-netural" as some kind of "great outcome" just shows how Out of Touch BCC are.   

Connecting SEQ2031 had the framework pretty right.  There are some areas I think need rework.

Connecting SEQ 2031 - New Lines New Names

Just needed to have Trunk Routes that stick to the main roads and interchange to each other and rail.  Yes this has a Rail Line (T7) connecting Springwood to Ipswich.  I tuned the map sideways and went Wow there is a major gap east west on the southside.  It could easily be a BRT Trunk Route too. 

Connecting SEQ 2031 - Full Colour

I have overlayed this on Gazza's picture and it looks like this. I never realised just how badly located Holland Park Busway Station is. 

Connecting SEQ 2031 - Full Colour - BCC Network   

I am sure there are a million reasons why this could never be done...in Brisbane/SEQ but rememebr we are hovering around worst practice mode share.

SEQ Growth Update

#Metro, your proposed route is certainly much better than BCC's proposed 26 at being a "Story Bridge corridor" route. How frequently should it run?

I ask because the 29/28 very-high-frequency shuttle is working exactly as it should. Capacity that's needed only as far as Boggo Rd is not being wasted at the far end of the other routes.

Now, you could in theory make the 28 the primary shuttle, and that would probably be fine. Please specify that though

Quote#Metro, your proposed route is certainly much better than BCC's proposed 26 at being a "Story Bridge corridor" route. How frequently should it run?

I ask because the 29/28 very-high-frequency shuttle is working exactly as it should. Capacity that's needed only as far as Boggo Rd is not being wasted at the far end of the other routes.

- At minimum 15 minutes during the day and 10 minutes during peak times. Depending on patronage I would expect it to shift to a 10-min all day, 5-min peak service. But that is speculation at this point, so I will be conservative.

- It is really important that buses run along Brunswick St outside Fortitude Valley station in both directions rather than do wiggles like BCC has suggested for Route 26 options (a) and (b).

QuoteNow, you could in theory make the 28 the primary shuttle, and that would probably be fine. Please specify that though

- I had not thought of just using Route 28 as 'The' shuttle. It is a good compromise solution. It's such a short route that you could easily increase the frequency from every 10 minutes to every 5 minutes by adding, say,  one or two buses to the circuit. That would leave Route 29 free to do whatever.

Good suggestion, Aldonius. 

Couriermail --> Brisbane's bus network to receive a major shake up $

QuoteThe Brisbane City Council has announced a shake-up of the city's bus network to make it easier and quicker to get around on the river city.

Civic cabinet chair for transport Ryan Murphy said the revamp would benefit Brisbane public transport users now, and into the future.

"So what we have announced today is a redesign of Brisbane's bus network to provide us with the capacity to grow into the future," he said.

"What it means is three new routes, it means two removed routes, and a redesign of 27 routes into just 13." ...

Brisbanetimes--> Brisbane bus review to improve southside services, but north misses out

QuoteSouthside commuters have been the big winners in a review of Brisbane's bus network, with those north of the river left waiting on vital public transport infrastructure.

Brisbane City Council has released details of the review, calling for feedback on plans to integrate the Brisbane Metro's high-frequency bus services to the existing network.

The council's public transport chairman, Ryan Murphy, said the review was vital for the transport system to cope with forecast population growth of 25 per cent by 2041, not to mention the 2032 Olympic Games.

"What it means is three new routes, it means two removed routes, and a redesign of 27 routes into just 13," he said.

"We are also changing the design of a number of suburban routes. Instead of going all the way into the city, they will terminate at busway stations and people will transfer onto metro services, so 12 routes will do that."

Murphy said he was confident the need for some commuters to change would not discourage them from using public transport. ...

Anyone else notice they dropped the metro peak frequency back to 5 mins from the earlier advertised 3 mins?

So capacity isn't even worse? Oh my lord!!

I think this is as good as it gets, folks.

IMHO Brisbane Metro does not increase overall busway capacity. It is a consolidation of existing capacity, a better use of labour force, vehicle decongestion at Cultural Centre... but not an overall line capacity increase.

(I've demonstrated that elsewhere using the math.)

It also has very limited ability to absorb transfer passengers, which is why the hourly routes are being feederised and not more frequent routes.

If we imagine progressively swapping standard and large buses off the busway for metro buses, at what point do the two equalise at in terms of capacity? (Yes, its yet another "Find Point X" type problem)

To carry the entire SEB capacity, you would need say 18,000 pphd / 150 pax = 120 buses per hour

3600 seconds/hour gives 3600 seconds/120 buses = 30 second headways.

30 seconds is about the time it takes to stop, drop, and go with passengers.

That is the breakeven point. As we have about 60 vehicles now, They would need to double the amount of Metro vehicles to reach the breakeven point.

Only after that breakeven point, is it a net positive increase in busway capacity.

Sydney Metro Northwest Comparison

If you want to go above 18,000 pphd you will want to look at rail options from there.   

(Sydney metro carries around ~ 20 million passengers per year, SE busway is around what ~ 40 million passenger trips per year, so the patronage can already support metro services like Sydney on current patronage).

Sources

NW Metro Patronage
https://nswtrains.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_railway_lines_by_patronage (convert Sydney metro patronage to implied annual patronage by adding addtional months at the average patronage per month)

- The 2019 patronage figure is for 7 months, so the 12 month figure is 12 months x (14.21 million/7 months) = 24.36 million per year (implied).

- SE Busway: 150,000 passengers per day x 5 days x 52 weeks = 39,000,000, round up to 40 million/year.

"Improving public transport infrastructure in Australian cities, infrastructure issues and options" Paul Blake, Queensland Transport (2009)
https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-12/2009_infrastructure_colloquium_paul_blake.pdf

"South East busway caries [sic] over 150,000 passengers per day" (page 18)

In other words basic maths has prevailed.

Quote from: SurfRail on October 13, 2022, 13:42:38 PMIn other words basic maths has prevailed.

and equals FAIL

This one is important, we haven't really quantified suburb-suburb trips on car to see if they are contestable space.


https://youtu.be/-ZDZtBRTyeI

Went along to a consultation session at Garbo today, well worth it.

Some comments.

- they benchmarked other review processes, particularly Auckland, Brisbane, Adelaide etc.
They believe it's important not to bite off more than you can chew, and that major redesigns really need more resources injected at the same time.
I agreed with them here.
So they will make changes in other parts of the network but for the time being they are focusing on the area around the metro and getting this across the line.
So far they don't believe they've had the same negative response as previous reviews, though of course they have had some people upset by the changes.
The challenge is to convince politicians and stakeholders that it's an overall net good.

However, they still well who feedback on other parts of the network because that will inform forthcoming reviews.

- in the 100 series bus area, it will go to about 90% coverage by HF service.
I said that this is perhaps the strongest part of the new network and that adding the 125 175 and 185 demonstrably "fixes" things.

- sometimes nimby's stop. Good ideas. Eg they like the idea of a 196 into Yeronga but you get locals who hate a bus terminus. And in wealthy areas nimbys have the means to go hire consultants to do traffic reports etc, so it's a challenge.
I made the comment that it has become much more fashionable to dab on wealthy people and debates like this are perhaps easier to fight. Also mentioned post covid habits and net zero as being licence to make change.

-bcc definitely want to complete the buz network. Basically there has been a funding freeze since about 2012 and this has halted a lot of changes.
So it's not just the outer regions being affected, tfb need funding too

- they can save some resources by truncating routes removing duplication so forth, but it doesn't save as much as you think. They believe a lot of the sunk cost is the buses themselves, so for example finishing a bus route at 9:00 p.m. rather than 11:00 p.m. doesn't really save a whole lot of money.

-contract boundaries can muck up logical routings

- they are genuinely excited about the CBD changes and it should solve a few problems going forwards.

Lack of high capacity buses on the north side is hamstrung by the lack o suitable platforms at King George square and Chermside not fitting them.

They also fully understand the issue with afternoon peak hour rockets. As part of the new configuration, they want to rename the surface stops as " Queen Street bus station platform 4" to basically sell it to the public that the entire complex is one thing, so they can direct people to that area and hopefully encourage them to use the routes more efficiently.

- they fully acknowledge that splitting the maroon glider city stops is not ideal and is a least bad solution.

- I made the point that terminating at Greenslopes is silly and they should go to Buranda local shops and hospital is and Metro connections are. They absolutely loved that feedback and encourage as many people to point that out as possible

- they agree about the need to get new bus routes into developing areas much earlier as a loss leader. If you don't, what happens is that people buy a second car and an attitude develops that taking the bus is discretionary spending because they are already saddled with the cost of paying back the car

- that feeder bus that goes from Hamilton north shore to Doomben they knew was going to fail. Edq basically wanted to fund the bare minimum connection.
This was part of a conversation where i said that routes should try and do a few things on the way to get a variety of passengers, and that singular routes

- I said that skipping coopers plains and breaking rail connections is silly. Yes the lx causes delays, but this is not as bad as no connection at all.
I said it's probably better to put up with it until such time as the level crossing is removed.

- they don't mind feeding rail, but the issue is that we don't really have good bus rail interchanges in many places, and they don't want to dump passengers at stations with 30 minute frequency, and the lack of a rail service plan has held up changes they could make.

The idea of a Moorooka rail interchange came about because it's a place where you can get the road network close to the rail and not introduce a long walk like you would at Salisbury

We spoke for a while so I can put up extra stuff as I remember it.

We spoke about the 26. I said I didn't mind the concept but again they are trying to make it revenue neutral.
I made the point that it probably makes more sense that the 77 should be the peak hour only route and the 26 should be full time.

The reason for the choice between the two routing options. The one via Spring Hill is supposed to emulate what the rockets already do. The one via valley is trying to be more like what a better network should do. So they are testing the waters.

Overall..
I'm taking the view that if we can

-Get the new HF frequency routes in (125,175, 185)
- have the minor routes feederised
- sort out the CBD arrangements
- do all this without a nimby blow up

Then we are making much more progress than we have had in the past decade, and it means other areas can get fixed up.

Quote from: Gazza on October 22, 2022, 20:14:22 PMWent along to a consultation session at Garbo today, well worth it.

Overall..
I'm taking the view that if we can

-Get the new HF frequency routes in (125,175, 185)
- have the minor routes feederised
- sort out the CBD arrangements
- do all this without a nimby blow up

Then we are making much more progress than we have had in the past decade, and it means other areas can get fixed up.

Sounds promising. Looking forward to when they get around to the Northside. It's a complete mess. The 322 and its massive dogleg should be the first thing to get the boot. Makes it completely unviable to use.

^^  Thanks Gazza for the report   

Thanks Gazza!

One of the bus feeder ones that annoys the crap outta me is Oxley. Great service all day, every day (except Sunday mornings at least). A reasonable bus interchange (under cover, minimal walking distance, good access), but it's serviced by hourly routes that dont run on weekends (by memory at least), while the BUZ 100 goes up the Ippy Mwy in to the City.

A HF route from Richlands Rail to Oxley Rail via Forest Lake and Inala would be absolutely primo. Good inter-suburban travel option (multiple shopping districts along with good residential coverage), rail connections at both ends that both have good bus/rail interchanges already built (granted, Richlands is only 30min freq off peak, but tha twill hopefully change in the next few years), plenty of schools along the route etc. Good for community movement withing the suburbs as well as good connections to rail for connections to other areas/City.

Couriermail --> Council to cut buses connecting four schools once Metro arrives $

QuoteDirect bus routes to Brisbane schools will be cut under Council's proposed bus network revamp, resulting in extra travel time and safety concerns.

Brisbane City Council unveiled its review last month, which analysed how the current network would fit in once Brisbane Metro is operational in 2024.

The draft plan, open for public feedback until December 14, includes cuts to the 202 service linking the city with Carindale, and the 112 service linking the city to Griffith University.

They will no longer run directly to Somerville House, St Laurence's College, Dutton Park State School and Brisbane South State Secondary College.

Based on the draft, St Laurence's and Somerville students will have to catch the 202 or 112 to a Metro interchange and wait for a connecting Metro service. ...

Or they could get an e-scooter or walk.

Route 202... that's right up there with Rocket 161 and 'BUZ' 314 running around Shorncliffe.

Schools could get school buses. Running a bus to schools outside of morning and afternoon bell times when everyone is already in class or after the school is well finished or on the weekend doesn't make sense.

That said, all of these areas have good alternatives.

St Laurence's College - within walking distance of Mater Hill Busway.

Same for Sommerville House - South Bank train stations and bus stations

Dutton Park State school - Park Road train station and Boggo Road busway station AND is getting CRR

Brisbane South Secondary College - BUZ Route 196, also could walk from the bus stop inside Dutton Park Parklands 400 meters.


 

Sent to all outlets:

Courier-Mail misses bus on schools & Brisbane Metro

14th November 2022

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has welcomed the opening of the Brisbane City Council Bus Network review (1).  Changes to a bus network need careful informed management.  Knee jerk political reactions are basically the reason why the 2013 bus network reform process for Brisbane led to poor outcomes, and Brisbane bus passengers have been suffering since.  We now have the chance for proper bus network reform. Let's grasp this opportunity for improvements with both hands and an informed media, and allow BCC and Translink deliver the frequent, connected, integrated network that delivers much better outcomes for all.

We note in recent media concerns raised by some impacted schools about proposed route changes and realignments (2). However, Brisbane Metro Line 2 (RBWH-UQ Lakes) will serve all of the schools mentioned. The new Brisbane Metro bus service will be far more frequent and direct than the low-frequency coverage routes proposed for change.

For example:

* Somerville House is within walking distance of South Bank train and busway stations (400 m). As such, it will have have access to Brisbane Metro Lines 1 & 2 when it opens.

* St Laurence's College is within walking distance of Mater Hill busway station (~ 400 m). As such, it will have have access to Brisbane Metro Lines 1 & 2 when it opens.

* Dutton Park State Primary School is adjacent to Park Road Railway station and Boggo Road busway station (~ 300 m). It has access to a safe pedestrian walkway that connects both these stations. It will also have access to Cross River Rail and Brisbane Metro Line 2 when they open.

* Brisbane South State Secondary College has direct access to BUZ 196 and 192 (~ 180 m), and will have have access to Brisbane Metro Line 2 from the busway stop inside Dutton Park Parklands (~ 260 m). The crossings are traffic-light controlled.

Generally, schools generate public transport demand that is limited to a narrow window before school starts and after school finishes. As such, school demand alone cannot support a bus route that operates well outside of bell times, or when schools are closed (e.g. evening and weekends). All of the schools mentioned will be within walking distance of Brisbane Metro Line 2 when it opens.

Where appropriate, RAIL Back On Track favours dedicated school buses during before and after school times. It may also be appropriate to review the pedestrian walkability and safety, for example, bus stops could be moved closer to school grounds, traffic lights added, or crossings repositioned.

There is ample opportunity for feedback on Brisbane's New Bus network.  This can be done by visiting https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-and-transport/public-transport/brisbanes-new-bus-network and submitting prior to the deadline of midnight 14th December 2022.

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

Reference:

1. Brisbane's New Bus Network
https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-and-transport/public-transport/brisbanes-new-bus-network

2. Council to cut buses connecting four schools once Metro arrives
https://www.couriermail.com.au/queensland-education/schools-hub/council-to-cut-buses-connecting-four-schools-once-metro-arrives/news-story/bf446319145d5f0c9031db97fe3b66a3

Facebook ...