111 +SE Busway part of 88 to Adelaide St?

[somebody]

With the recent discussion on the 88, I'm now questioning the merit in having the 111 run to Roma St.  Most connections to other buses can be done just as easily at the Cultural Centre, and if you are heading west you would be best off using a 4xx express bus (in general).  Connections to trains on the south side would be obviously better done at South Bank, and if you want to connect to a north side train line Anzac Square/Central would be a good location, even though there aren't presently enough bus stops there, they should be able to be established.

The other positive is that moving the 88 to Adelaide St would allow stops at Parliament, which isn't properly served by PT.  The 88 could do this south bound, but not north bound unless some radical approach was taken to establishing a stop on Queens Wharf Rd.

[#Metro]

I would leave the 111 to serve Roma Street.

[somebody]

So long as parliament is served in some other way.  City Loop buses hardly provide much of an alternative.

[somebody]

I want to add that if you were really serious, you'd extend the 111 to Springwood bus station and then along the 572 route, and have a different route from the city to Logan Hyperdome from the same stop as the 111 via the Captain Cook Bridge and the motorway south of 8 mile plains with the current 88 frequency and operating hours.

[Gazza]

The other positive is that moving the 88 to Adelaide St would allow stops at Parliament, which isn't properly served by PT.

Would this change run for the 6 years or so until CRR comes online?

[somebody]

The other positive is that moving the 88 to Adelaide St would allow stops at Parliament, which isn't properly served by PT.

Would this change run for the 6 years or so until CRR comes online?

I don't see why not.

[Gazza]

I'm now questioning the merit in having the 111 run to Roma St.

The way I see it, the 111 is the busway flagship service.
Whilst many other routes enter and leave the busway at various points, there does need to be a single legible service that runs its length without deviating, so you can treat the service as you would a train line, and this means continuing right through to KGS and Roma-straße.
Cant remember where I read this, but the only reason the 111 and 333 aren't a continuous busway route is because the 333 runs on surface roads, and that would impact upon the reliability of the route as a whole.

So for that reason, the 111 should stay off Adelaide St is because...
-It avoids surface congestion.
-Legibility
-Fastest connection for those interchanging with the Ipswich line (Going to central, and then back the other way increases journey times)
-Long term planning. The reason for sending CRR via Roma St rather than Central was because of the busway connection, and because Central is overcrowded. Maintaining the Roma St terminus also allows for future connections to CRR trains.

[somebody]

Cant remember where I read this, but the only reason the 111 and 333 aren't a continuous busway route is because the 333 runs on surface roads, and that would impact upon the reliability of the route as a whole.

I think I could have said that.  If you have heard it from official sources, I'd love to see a reference.

So for that reason, the 111 should stay off Adelaide St is because...
-It avoids surface congestion.
-Legibility
-Fastest connection for those interchanging with the Ipswich line (Going to central, and then back the other way increases journey times)
-Long term planning. The reason for sending CRR via Roma St rather than Central was because of the busway connection, and because Central is overcrowded. Maintaining the Roma St terminus also allows for future connections to CRR trains.

1) Agreed
2) I don't get why people say this?  It actually goes against legibility IMO because it means that it is another place where buses to the south side leave from.  I much prefer the Sydney way where (virtually) all buses to the east leave from Elizabeth St, all via Newtown leave from Castlereagh St and all via Parramatta Rd leave from George St.  It just makes sense.  Harbour Bridge has Clarence St/QVB/Carrington St, although I believe this is divided logically.  I suppose there is the 339 leaving from Castlereagh St, but that is the only even slightly illogical route that isn't a Metrobus.
3) Yes, that is true.  However, if you are coming from the Beenleigh line, you may rather use the Great Circle (although the frequency on that could discourage you).  And it is outweighed by the connections to the north line.  If you want to connect from a 111 to a train to Chelmer, you could easily double change.  And if heading west of Indooroopilly north of the river or to the Centenary suburbs, you would interchange at the Cultural Centre on the current system.
4) Yes, but by the time CRR opens, I expect there to be a lot of pressure on King George Square Bus Station, if bus patronage growth is restored.  The 111 consumes space in King George Square, I would argue less profitably than other routes might.
4) This point may be true.

[somebody]

I also have the same problem with the Veolia services leaving town via Ann St, together with the 184/185/210/212.  Probably P211 too.

[Gazza]

If you have heard it from official sources, I'd love to see a reference.

Nah, was on a forum...may well have been you.

I don't get why people say this?  

Think of it as the "South Eastern Line" rather than the "South Eastern Busway" for a second. Hence it needs a permanent all stopper that hits every station on the "line", in order.
Deviating off onto a surface street reduces this type of legibility.....

Look, I can totally see where you are coming from with buses to a particular area sharing the same departure point...but the city stop issue has a permanent problem with the design of QSBS which makes a "perfect" solution difficult because it produces an inherent conflict between the objective I mentioned above, and being able to have every route to the same area share a departure point. Plus we have too many routes for every positive co location to be possible.

A bus coming from the Southside for insance can only serve either QSBS or KGS, but not both.

I still think the hierarchy for location should be:
-Have all high frequency routes hitting a common point to enhance the network effect. Most important...The BUZ network should have it's "Central Station".
-Have routes which share a common corridor without a high frequency route on it sharing stops.
-Rocket/Bullet/Peak hour only routes tend not to have a high need for specific co location because these would not tend to be TUAG.

Furthermore, there could be a slightly   reason for not co locating some routes...Travel markets.
Ill use the 400 series ones for example. Imagine if all 400 series via Indro routes shared the same departure point. It would create a situation where people from beyond Indro would be competing for seats with people only bound for Indro.
I may sound pretty hardline with this, but if people wanna to go to Indro, take the train or a 444! They don't need the other routes.

[somebody]

I don't get why people say this?  

Think of it as the "South Eastern Line" rather than the "South Eastern Busway" for a second. Hence it needs a permanent all stopper that hits every station on the "line", in order.
Deviating off onto a surface street reduces this type of legibility.....

I can see where you are coming from.  You could also use QSBS, but then the SE busway 88 wouldn't be able to stop near Parliament heading inbound.

-Have all high frequency routes hitting a common point to enhance the network effect. Most important...The BUZ network should have it's "Central Station".

Cultural Centre.  Even if the 412 and now 88 don't serve it.

-Have routes which share a common corridor without a high frequency route on it sharing stops.
-Rocket/Bullet/Peak hour only routes tend not to have a high need for specific co location because these would not tend to be TUAG.

I'm lost for words.  Suffice to say, that I think you will find that these rocket routes and the 160 have poor loadings heading outbound.  Last time I saw the 160 at the Cultural Centre O/B, it had 3 people on it at about 6:30pm on a Monday.

Furthermore, there could be a slightly   reason for not co locating some routes...Travel markets.
Ill use the 400 series ones for example. Imagine if all 400 series via Indro routes shared the same departure point. It would create a situation where people from beyond Indro would be competing for seats with people only bound for Indro.
I may sound pretty hardline with this, but if people wanna to go to Indro, take the train or a 444! They don't need the other routes.

Since we've discussed this at some length previously, I don't know what to add.  Was something unclear in my previous comments?  Or do you just choose to disagree with me?  Don't you think that having more of these people crowding out the Moggill people is a problem, or do you think these people should have only a 15 minute frequency from 16bph weekday daytimes on the corridor?

As for taking the train, on weekends and after 7pm or so, this only has a half hourly frequency, so it is not attractive.  It is also hourly after 10pm Mon-Thu.

[Gazza]

As for taking the train, on weekends and after 7pm or so, this only has a half hourly frequency, so it is not attractive.

Problem?
http://www.translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/rosewood-ipswich-line-draft-timetable.pdf

or do you think these people should have only a 15 minute frequency from 16bph weekday daytimes on the corridor?

It's going to take to long for me to go through, but where are the rest of the 400 series routes distributed? Would it be possible to say have them all on Adelaide street, near KGS?

Or do you just choose to disagree with me?

I choose to disagree because the whole bus network in that part of the city is set up wrong.

Or do you just choose to disagree with me?  Don't you think that having more of these people crowding out the Moggill people is a problem, or do you think these people should have only a 15 minute frequency from 16bph weekday daytimes on the corridor?

Whoops, should have written 88 in there too, so yeah 8 bph out of 16 is not too bad.

[somebody]

As for taking the train, on weekends and after 7pm or so, this only has a half hourly frequency, so it is not attractive.

Problem?
http://www.translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/rosewood-ipswich-line-draft-timetable.pdf

That timetable has no date for implementation.  Although I do agree that it will be better.  One of the really good things about it, is that it will remove much of the incentive to have the 444 serve Roma St, as there will be an equivalent frequency from there.  Of course, I am assuming the 88 will be canned/Indro bit chopped off

or do you think these people should have only a 15 minute frequency from 16bph weekday daytimes on the corridor?

It's going to take to long for me to go through, but where are the rest of the 400 series routes distributed? Would it be possible to say have them all on Adelaide street, near KGS?

425+430+435+453+454+460 from QSBS B = 2+1+1+2+2+2 per hour weekday daytimes.  Weekday evenings becomes 1+1+0+1+1+? (not sure when the 460 drops back to hourly)
Weekends is:
425: 1/hour
430: 1/hour
435: starts from Indro shops, so 0/hour
450: 2/hour, drops back to 1/hour in evenings
460: 1/hour, but 2/hour part of Saturday

433+445 from Adelaide St, 1 per hour each, but the 445 doesn't run evenings or Sundays.

444: 4/hour
88: 4/hour until about 7pm 7 days

As for "Would it be possible to put them all on Adelaide St?", I say yes.

Or do you just choose to disagree with me?

I choose to disagree because the whole bus network in that part of the city is set up wrong.

On that point I fully agree.

Or do you just choose to disagree with me?  Don't you think that having more of these people crowding out the Moggill people is a problem, or do you think these people should have only a 15 minute frequency from 16bph weekday daytimes on the corridor?

Whoops, should have written 88 in there too, so yeah 8 bph out of 16 is not too bad.

I was ignoring the 88 with my 16/hour number, because I don't think it will last long.  So 8/hour, not properly co-ordinated out of 20/hour.

As you can see, in theory the frequency is actually better from Queen St Bus Station, even on weekends pre-88, but nearly all of the commuters head straight to KGSBS for its previously superior routing (old habits die hard) and the consistency of the frequency from that stop.  This is what has caused the creation of the 88, because a number of buses are underutilised.  It is the same on the SE busway side with the 111, although the 160 doesn't run on weekends.  They could have made it so somewhat cheaper than the 88.

[Gazza]

As for "Would it be possible to put them all on Adelaide St?", I say yes.

Lets do that, and then spend a few thousand on a handful of LCD timetable screens near the stops. Look at it, and then decide if you want to pop downstairs to the 444, or stay on the Adelaide Street stop.
Problem solved.

[#Metro]

Those frequencies ^^^ look pretty bad. Why not just have BUZ 444 and BUZ 450 every 10 minutes all day and weekend (either both or combined). Everyone else for these 4XX routes past Indooroopilly can use the train, transfer to BUZ etc. In fact, feeder services could be trialled on the weekend as a non-radical solution (after extensive public consultation of course).

BUZ 444 and a BUZ 450 would operate to Indooroopilly on the weekend at boosted frequency, and all other routes to other destinations would terminate and feed at Indooroopilly.The bus-km saved could be fed back into the feeder routes to boost the frequency. The effect on patronage could be looked at then over the course of 6 months (the minimum time to get meaningful data) and then if successful could be introduced into the weekday timetable with bus connections and rail connections (rail connection requires a interchange at indooroopilly though).

[somebody]

As for "Would it be possible to put them all on Adelaide St?", I say yes.

Lets do that, and then spend a few thousand on a handful of LCD timetable screens near the stops. Look at it, and then decide if you want to pop downstairs to the 444, or stay on the Adelaide Street stop.
Problem solved.

That is a straw man.  I never said that there would need to be LCD screens.  These don't work, so why waste money on more of them?

Look at it, and then decide if you want to pop downstairs to the 444, or stay on the Adelaide Street stop.
Problem solved.

Not solved.  It is still an annoying system.

I actually think that if they are going to street stops, it should be Ann St outbound and Adelaide St inbound, not via Cultural Centre.  But that won't happen.

As for taking the train, on weekends and after 7pm or so, this only has a half hourly frequencwy, so it is not attractive.

Problem?
http://www.translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/rosewood-ipswich-line-draft-timetable.pdf

15 minutes is still a mediocre frequency at best for such a short trip.

The other problem with this is that the "BBC", "Auchenflower" and "Indooroopilly school" express stops are not that close to the train station.  "Wesley Hospital" is the express stop nearest Auchenflower train station.

I have noticed that a number of people in this town still have an attitude that the users of the service should accept what they are given.  PT will never be successful in Brisbane if they continue with their stupidity.  It is no wonder that Brisbanites don't like to use PT much.  The defense of the incompetence just amazes me, and amazes me even more with it being continued.

[Gazza]

That is a straw man.  I never said that there would need to be LCD screens.  These don't work, so why waste money on more of them?

Was a serious suggestion though. Basically just treat that section of Adelaide street as an 'extension' of KGS.

[somebody]

That is a straw man.  I never said that there would need to be LCD screens.  These don't work, so why waste money on more of them?

Was a serious suggestion though. Basically just treat that section of Adelaide street as an 'extension' of KGS.

You cannot wait for buses through both locations simultaneously.  Therefore, not a solution.

Sorry, but you aren't making any sense.  Do you still think that the current system is acceptable?  I note that you agree that you are choosing to disagree.  Do you think that you have a better solution than me?  If so, you can post it.

[#Metro]

I have noticed that a number of people in this town still have an attitude that the users of the service should accept what they are given.  PT will never be successful in Brisbane if they continue with their stupidity.  It is no wonder that Brisbanites don't like to use PT much.  The defense of the incompetence just amazes me, and amazes me even more with it being continued.

Hahah, you are starting to sound like Paul Mees.

Yes, I know it is frustrating but, WELCOME TO BRISBANE , Woooooo! 
I had the pleasure of being on a rail platform late at night (it was a weekend), a clearly unhappy QR customer approached me (clearly I must have RAILBOT MEMBER stamped on my forehead) "where are the trains", "where are the buses at this hour?" very annoyed "I'm a shop owner, and In Melbourne I have employees that come in on PT [rant]".

Oooh, Melbourne , hello, THIS IS BRISBANE. No services, get used to it!
Now I wonder what a Perth person would say...

[O_128]

Probably not the right place but wasnt real time info for buses and trains promised aswell as google maps integration???

[somebody]

Yes, I know it is frustrating but, WELCOME TO BRISBANE , Woooooo! 

Yes, I am not at all happy here.

[Gazza]

You cannot wait for buses through both locations simultaneously.  Therefore, not a solution.

What i mean is, you check the screen and see when/where the next bus is leaving from, and then put yourself there.

I note that you agree that you are choosing to disagree.  Do you think that you have a better solution than me?  If so, you can post it.

Have already said elsewhere. Have far less routes penetrating the CBD, and eliminate the problem that way.

Look, I'm not defending the status quo, but at the same time these ideas of moving busway routes off the busways aren't perfect solutions either.

[#Metro]

Yes, I am not at all happy here.

Yes, it begins the moment you step off the plane at our fair city's airport, and catch the airtrain (or a gouge-o-mobile) if the train has gone home to sleep
for the night (it needs to be in its shed at 8pm) .

[STB]

All I'll say here is a common route with along a common line makes easy understanding among folks, changing it to Adelaide St brings about a multitude of problems, including affecting on time running, among many other problems.  Although I can see the logic of moving route 111 to Adelaide St, even though I think it's a bit misguided.

In a nutshell, I agree with keeping route 111, and 88 on the SE Busway as it stands (it's effectively a train service).  Also disagree with extending route 111 beyond Eight Mile Plains, route 555 serves a different market and helps the 111 with passenger loads along the SE Busway.  But the primary purpose of route 555 is for Logan City passengers, who have every right for route 555 to stop all stops along the busway to maintain access, if passengers wish to use route 555 for local busway travel, then they have that option.

[somebody]

You cannot wait for buses through both locations simultaneously.  Therefore, not a solution.

What i mean is, you check the screen and see when/where the next bus is leaving from, and then put yourself there.

You will find that sometimes you have to make a decision on whether or not you can reach the service in time.  Sometimes, you may get it wrong and then also miss a service from the other location.  Alternatively, you might have to let a service go that you would have caught.  It's not an acceptable solution.  It's bad enough when a train comes on the wrong platform and it's not the opposite side of the island.

Have already said elsewhere. Have far less routes penetrating the CBD, and eliminate the problem that way.

Look, I'm not defending the status quo, but at the same time these ideas of moving busway routes off the busways aren't perfect solutions either.

Yes, but didn't you also want to increase frequency on the 444 to 6/hour or more?  That isn't fair to people in the west not on that route, unless their frequency is also massively increased.  And there isn't going to be money to do that.

Adelaide St is near-busway.  It is supposed to be only used by local acces, buses & taxis.  Although it isn't grade separated from other roads.  You could return the 111 to QSBS which would solve that limitation, but it isn't particularly good as QSBS doesn't connect with much.

All I'll say here is a common route with along a common line makes easy understanding among folks, changing it to Adelaide St brings about a multitude of problems, including affecting on time running, among many other problems.  Although I can see the logic of moving route 111 to Adelaide St, even though I think it's a bit misguided.

In a nutshell, I agree with keeping route 111, and 88 on the SE Busway as it stands (it's effectively a train service).  Also disagree with extending route 111 beyond Eight Mile Plains, route 555 serves a different market and helps the 111 with passenger loads along the SE Busway.  But the primary purpose of route 555 is for Logan City passengers, who have every right for route 555 to stop all stops along the busway to maintain access, if passengers wish to use route 555 for local busway travel, then they have that option.

How will you get from Buranda to Parliament off peak?  bus/train to South Bank and then Goodwill bridge?

If you do that, you should also have the 160 in KGSBS.

EDIT: I'm also not particularly comfortable with Roma St as a terminus.  There is nowhere to turn around until Countess St.  I suppose this would work well when heading to a break there though.

[#Metro]

Sorry, I may be slow, but I have lost what the guiding purpose of these changes are.
Adelaide street is a bus jam. Trust me, there are pedestrians at crossings, there are pedestrians not at crossings (these are the ones you have to watch out for), all manner of vehicles, buses everywhere and the odd cyclist. There are 4-5 signalled intersections on it. If you want speed and reliability, send whatever route underground.

More buses should be taken off the street. There are too many buses in the Brisbane CBD during peak hour and it is congested with buses. Elizabeth St is a high speed drag strip as is Ann St. Terminating non-line haul routes at suburban railway stations will save money, increase frequency in the suburbs, decongest the CBD and probably have a small increase in reliability too.

[somebody]

Sorry, I may be slow, but I have lost what the guiding purpose of these changes are.

3-fold.
Serve Central (more or less)
Serve Parliament
Free up space in King George Square.

[STB]

Somebody,

If you really are that desperate to have a bus from Buranda to Parliament.  Then you can do either A, add an extra stop to route 555 after it departs Edward St, or B just walk it (it's not that far!).

[somebody]

Somebody,

If you really are that desperate to have a bus from Buranda to Parliament.  Then you can do either A, add an extra stop to route 555 after it departs Edward St, or B just walk it (it's not that far!).

This service is also provided by the 172.

I still feel this end of town is under served.  There is the city loop, but that's not particularly attractive.  Even in peak, from the south side BT areas, there is only the 118, 153, 162, 136 and 206 services which serve it.  It is ok from the north side in peak, which is actually quite strange.

I also think that it is a bad thing that QUT GP students are given such an annoying experience of PT for the 3 years or so that they are there.  A 15 minute walk isn't something that people will be that happy about at the end of a PT trip.

[somebody]

I don't know about anyone else, but whenever I am on a Northbound busway service and am heading for a northbound train, I change at King George Square and walk to Central.  That makes the Roma St service a bit useless to my way of thinking.  Except when heading to/from the Ipswich Line.

[somebody]

One more thing if I may, saying that the 111 (or whatever) is a flagship service implies that there are other routes which aren't flagship services.  I find this concept quite stupid, and it really gets up my nostrils that that is the way it is done in Brisbane, and moreover looks to be the way it will continue to be done here.  Does anywhere else do it this way?

Perhaps I am wrong.

What are the loadings of the 160 leaving QSBS?