Bus discussion split from 'Labor promises free off-peak travel for seniors'

[Gazza]

I don't see that it's comparable.

It is comparable because you were the one getting pissy over the 111 going to Roma St.

Say what you want about Kelvin Grove routes deserving to run into KGS, but above all, the routes that should get first priority to use Busway stations are the ones that run the other 95% of their route soley on the busway!

I dont' see how it is good route design to have a bus running all stops along the Busway, and then diverting off at the last minute.

Again, looking to the future, if the Busway was LRT, it would be a line from 8MP to Chermside wouldn't it (Or wherever each end of the Busway gets built out to)
Would a tram be able to do this...Go and exit the Busway and do whatever in the CBD because you felt like it. No. It would run right through underground, and the line would through run to each terminus, just like the Citytrain network.

The 111 is the "Tram" of the Busway network. Not hard to comprehend.
It shouldn't leave the Busway because then that creates a 'Gap' in clean coverage of the line.

Again, I reiterate the point. If the 111 is popular and doing well (Because its a beautifully run route that people like), and the other routes are less popular as a result, then THEY are the ones that need to be modified (Drastically if need be).

I mean, what's the point of the 160 anyway? Don't the 111 and the 150 combined do the same thing?

[somebody]

I dont' see how it is good route design to have a bus running all stops along the Busway, and then diverting off at the last minute.

I could live with it remaining in QSBS.

As for there being a Chermside-8mp route in the future, well, I'll believe that one when I see it.  The busway reaching Chermside is some way off.  I don't think its the time to be designing our route structure around it.

Maybe you wouldn't like to have a route structure with better than 15 minute headways off peak for inner suburbs, logical city stop locations and reasonable levels of efficiency.  In that case, I suggest that you don't listen to what I say.

I mean, what's the point of the 160 anyway? Don't the 111 and the 150 combined do the same thing?

It made perfect sense before the 111 left QSBS, but I agree, it makes less sense now.  However, if the 555 went via CCB as suggested in another thread it is arguable that it is needed to improve frequency around South Bank.

Data is hard to find, but I don't doubt that if the 111 vs 160 vs 88 patronage were graphed there would be a clear break point in 2008.  Similarly, if the graph from the thredbo10 of the 444 vs other routes on the corridor were extended (thredbo10 only graphed up to 2007) you would also see the break point.

Say what you want about Kelvin Grove routes deserving to run into KGS, but above all, the routes that should get first priority to use Busway stations are the ones that run the other 95% of their route soley on the busway!

Must disagree with this point.  The routes which should go into KGSBS are those which would bring the most benefit to the network as a whole are those which should go in there.  Did the 111+160 patronage suddenly spike up when the 111 went into KGSBS?  I very much doubt it.  In fact, I think it would have trimmed back on the growth as you suddenly have a less good headway.  If data could be produced which shows that the 111+160 did indeed spike up, then I'd have to concede defeat.

[dwb]

I will vote for any party in a heart-beat if their currently mythical transport policy includes resuming the BCC bus fleet and depots and its interest in the Eagle Farm factory, moreso if it involves Perth style privatisation.  I am so tired of BCC interfering in the job of what is properly a regional authority that I would be very happy never to hear from them again outside of fixing the pavement at bus stops.  Get them out of the picture altogether!

Different bus standards, different timetable design, different signage, different livery, different rules about top-up, different bus stops (even on the same route sometimes once you cross the BCC boundary), tripe about "our buses carry more than the trains do" - and to top it all, political stoushes whenever the Mayor is of a different political flavor to the Premier.  What is the point of all this other than BCC shouting out "we're special"?  It does not achieve an integrated or well-designed network apt to solving SEQ's woeful levels of PT.

Going back to the VERY FIRST post on this thread, I am entirely confused as to why it is titled "Bus discussion from Labor promises free off-peak travel for seniors".

Perhaps it should be renamed Simon v Gazza flamefest?

[Gazza]

Going back to the VERY FIRST post on this thread, I am entirely confused as to why it is titled "Bus discussion from Labor promises free off-peak travel for seniors".

As for there being a Chermside-8mp route in the future, well, I'll believe that one when I see it.  The busway reaching Chermside is some way off.  I don't think its the time to be designing our route structure around it.

But do you not agree that an 8 mile plains to Chermside is a logical route for the future to replace the 111 and 333? I'd do it tommorow TBH.

Maybe you wouldn't like to have a route structure with better than 15 minute headways off peak for inner suburbs, logical city stop locations and reasonable levels of efficiency.  In that case, I suggest that you don't listen to what I say.

Now you're putting words in my mouth.
And who crowned you the god of what the best network design is for Brisbane anyway? Are your ideas the ONLY way for Brisbane as a city to achieve those goals? Thats a bit arrogant :/

I don't see how having dedicated busway services running underground prevents the rest of the city stops being set up nicely......I thought that making buses more "Train Like" was accepted as a way to get more people using them, and a lot of the innovations in vehicle, stop design etc was all part of this.

I can totally see your point about city stop locations, but inevitably, there is always going to be conflict on what can be co-located. Think of the 412. Should it stay with the 109, so people going to UQ can always get the first bus? Or do we co-locate with the 444 so people going to Toowong get better frequency, or do we co locate with some other southside busway route? See what I'm getting at?

By all means, there is potential to bundle the less frequent routes together in families from common city stops.

But I think it should be accepted that the 111 is a "Line", that behaves like a Subway train by going under the CBD, and making it do ANY surface running stops it being like a train. Yes, that stops it being co located with every southside route under the sun, but you know, stuff it!

Imagine the Canadian scenario, where multiple high frequency routes run a block apart. Say you are Downtown and want to head in one direction. You're mid block, so you can walk either left or right to either of the roads that run in the direction you want.
Ha ha, cant wait at a common stop there now can you?

If people gravitate towards the simple logical routes like the 111, and gravitate away from the niche/crappy ones, then maybe people do prefer a simple network without a stupid number of routes to remember. Shocking!

The real issue isn't the city stops, it's the fact there are too many routes in the first place! If that was fixed we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[ozbob]

Going back to the VERY FIRST post on this thread, I am entirely confused as to why it is titled "Bus discussion from Labor promises free off-peak travel for seniors".

It is split thread from the thread 'Labor promises free off-peak travel for seniors'

Exactly what is says, that thread developed into a bus discussion in part, that part was moved here, and the discussion continues ...

[dwb]

The real issue isn't the city stops, it's the fact there are too many routes in the first place! If that was fixed we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yes too many routes, and too much incentive to put as many routes as possible on busway simply because it is better than the roads.

My perspective is therefore that we need more bus priority, especially in the inner city. This means signalling improvements, bus lanes, car exclusion areas etc.

Just think, even at busway portals, the buses are often sequenced LAST, not first. Shame BCC!

Then some of those more fine mesh suburban routes can just use streets, and the big high frequency capacity routes (like the 111) can use the busway infrastructure, like Gazza says, as train/tram like as possible. [This does not imply we don't need to simplify routes, but routes won't be simplified until the standard of service is changed... ie it shouldn't be more important to have hourly buses within 400m of x% of res zoning in town, than having routes take direct, reliable and fast routings. By attempting to serve everyone through inefficient routing and too many route variations (rockets, shuttles, express, BUZ, normal etc) and too many options, skipping that stop, going that left rather than right, branching off here, we just get bad service for everyone. Branching sucks, and effectively that is the challenge that Brisbane's busway network has matured into and now needs to deal with. Others around the world are built with interchange in the burbs so that the the core network runs as efficiently [and legibly!] as possible.

And on this issue of north/south infrastructure, I think we need to grow up and share and better plan who gets what level of service. We clearly also need some new major bus infrastructure, inspite of and separate to CRR and any other duplications, realignments yadda yadda that might happen to the rail network.

For example, maybe buses could be wacked down Storey Bridge into valley.... the 200 could then become the BUZ that you catch to Valley from eastside, but the 222 could be the Buz to the city from eastside. Surely that could work?

[dwb]

Going back to the VERY FIRST post on this thread, I am entirely confused as to why it is titled "Bus discussion from Labor promises free off-peak travel for seniors".

It is split thread from the thread 'Labor promises free off-peak travel for seniors'

Exactly what is says, that thread developed into a bus discussion in part, that part was moved here, and the discussion continues ...

So can it be renamed just "Bus discussion" or "South/north city bound routes - busway or surface. Where to terminate?.... I dunno, but seems like it should be renamed!

Or at least add in the "split..."

Ed Bit in bold added.

[ozbob]

At the time it made sense to those who were actively discussing.     I will add split thread.

[somebody]

Perhaps it should be renamed Simon v Gazza flamefest?

Simon v everyone flamefest?

As for there being a Chermside-8mp route in the future, well, I'll believe that one when I see it.  The busway reaching Chermside is some way off.  I don't think its the time to be designing our route structure around it.

But do you not agree that an 8 mile plains to Chermside is a logical route for the future to replace the 111 and 333? I'd do it tommorow TBH.

I wouldn't.  This has been discussed before on other forums, and I agree with the majority that this would reduce the reliability too much.

Through routing is nice in some circumstances, but it does reduce reliability, even on a Class A ROW.  I think there was a humantransit post on it somewhere.

Maybe you wouldn't like to have a route structure with better than 15 minute headways off peak for inner suburbs, logical city stop locations and reasonable levels of efficiency.  In that case, I suggest that you don't listen to what I say.

Now you're putting words in my mouth.
And who crowned you the god of what the best network design is for Brisbane anyway? Are your ideas the ONLY way for Brisbane as a city to achieve those goals? Thats a bit arrogant :/

I did.  And yes it is. 

I wouldn't say that I am the "God" of network design.  It is more like Translink are the "Satan" of network design.  You'd have to try to design a worse network.  Everything they touch is exactly the opposite of what should be done.  Well, that's an exaggeration.  130/140 and 330/333/340 are pretty much right, other than the bit at Chermside.

I can totally see your point about city stop locations, but inevitably, there is always going to be conflict on what can be co-located. Think of the 412. Should it stay with the 109, so people going to UQ can always get the first bus? Or do we co-locate with the 444 so people going to Toowong get better frequency, or do we co locate with some other southside busway route? See what I'm getting at?

Actually, moving the 444, 412 and 109 to QSBS B would solve this problem reasonably neatly.  So long as you can allow the O/B 412 to run via the Cultural Centre.  Although I think the 109 should be frequent enough that it removes the incentive to use the 412.

But I think it should be accepted that the 111 is a "Line", that behaves like a Subway train by going under the CBD, and making it do ANY surface running stops it being like a train. Yes, that stops it being co located with every southside route under the sun, but you know, stuff it!

I would disagree with these priorities.  However, I re-iterate, that the 111, 88, 160 and 555 combine in such a way that it isn't a big problem.

Imagine the Canadian scenario, where multiple high frequency routes run a block apart. Say you are Downtown and want to head in one direction. You're mid block, so you can walk either left or right to either of the roads that run in the direction you want.
Ha ha, cant wait at a common stop there now can you?

I am sure that you can wait at a common stop with better than 15 minute frequency once you arrive at one though.  Which you can't in Brisbane.

If people gravitate towards the simple logical routes like the 111, and gravitate away from the niche/crappy ones, then maybe people do prefer a simple network without a stupid number of routes to remember. Shocking!

The real issue isn't the city stops, it's the fact there are too many routes in the first place! If that was fixed we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I think mostly people are gravitating to the reliable frequency of the BUZ services.

Agree about there being too many (slightly different) routes, but the stops are a real problem.

We actually got onto this by talking about the 222.  This is yet another route to do something which is pretty much already done by the existing routes.  217 also.

[dwb]

I wouldn't.  This has been discussed before on other forums, and I agree with the majority that this would reduce the reliability too much.

Through routing is nice in some circumstances, but it does reduce reliability, even on a Class A ROW.  I think there was a humantransit post on it somewhere.

Would it really? Even if the buses were run at a high enough frequency? It is afterall not the time but the gap between buses that is the big issue. If we were to think of this as a "subway" line, well you don't check your watch before going to the station, you just go to the station and then if you're lucky at the station it tells you expected arrival time of next service, and it will probably be only 2mins away or up to 8mins if you saw one leave the station and you're off peak.

Actually, moving the 444, 412 and 109 to QSBS B would solve this problem reasonably neatly.  So long as you can allow the O/B 412 to run via the Cultural Centre.  Although I think the 109 should be frequent enough that it removes the incentive to use the 412.

That would seem like a good idea to me, should we further explore this?

I think mostly people are gravitating to the reliable frequency of the BUZ services.

Absolutely agree, still not that great counter peak though.

Agree about there being too many (slightly different) routes, but the stops are a real problem.

What exactly do you mean? Limited stops in CBD? Not if we had some real bus priority - you could use the existing curb space much more efficiently.

We actually got onto this by talking about the 222.  This is yet another route to do something which is pretty much already done by the existing routes.

It may be desireable for some to cut and run from bad routes before starting new ones, but you'd have to be a brave politician to do that in this day and age. I can live with baby steps, as long as a little down the track, when the new route can be proven to have sold itself, the old route is cut.

[somebody]

There are a lot of priorities on the system.  I'm not sure that a 333 frequency upgrade is near the top of the pile.  There is also:
330 BUZ
180 BUZ
Everton Park 15 minute service
GCL upgrades
train upgrades
300 BUZ
extra trips on 380/381 and 174/175 to provide 15 minute headway service on Waterworks Rd & Logan Rd respectively.

more!

Actually, moving the 444, 412 and 109 to QSBS B would solve this problem reasonably neatly.  So long as you can allow the O/B 412 to run via the Cultural Centre.  Although I think the 109 should be frequent enough that it removes the incentive to use the 412.

That would seem like a good idea to me, should we further explore this?

Happy to, but I would have thought you'd be the loudest against taking the 444 out of KGSBS.

Agree about there being too many (slightly different) routes, but the stops are a real problem.

What exactly do you mean? Limited stops in CBD? Not if we had some real bus priority - you could use the existing curb space much more efficiently.

What I mean is that the 160 is only slightly different from the 111, 207 only slightly different from the 217 I/B and 206 O/B.  222 will largely be a short working of the 200, 88 is a short working of the 444.  I'm sure there are others.

It may be desireable for some to cut and run from bad routes before starting new ones, but you'd have to be a brave politician to do that in this day and age. I can live with baby steps, as long as a little down the track, when the new route can be proven to have sold itself, the old route is cut.

Certainly seems that way in Brisbane.

[Jonno]

I think I have another reason to make busway light rail and put in light and heavy rail across the city! To stop this discussion!! 

[Gazza]

would disagree with these priorities.

Why? I'ts proven that making buses more Trainlike is an easy way to get people using them?

Would it really? Even if the buses were run at a high enough frequency? It is afterall not the time but the gap between buses that is the big issue. If we were to think of this as a "subway" line, well you don't check your watch before going to the station, you just go to the station and then if you're lucky at the station it tells you expected arrival time of next service, and it will probably be only 2mins away or up to 8mins if you saw one leave the station and you're off peak.

These are exactly my thoughts. At a given time of the day, its going to take exactly the same length of time for a bus to 'go' from 8MP to Chermside....Add the running times together basically. Well, they are separate routes at the moment of course, so there would be some time savings from the passengers point of view by not interchanging at KGS, but I'm digressing.
If one bus gets held up, big deal, there's another right behind, that's the point of high frequency networks....

What is your measure of reliability anyway? HT did a post on this one too http://www.humantransit.org/2010/10/beyond-on-time-performance.html

[somebody]

would disagree with these priorities.

Why? I'ts proven that making buses more Trainlike is an easy way to get people using them?

As for why, refer to 3 replies ago.

I think BUZ has proven that a reliable frequency is the most important thing.  Speed is also important.

[Golliwog]

Eh, I think the key thing about BUZ was the branding and the standard frequency that came with it.

Also, IMO, BUZes are part of making buses more train like. In most cases it meant cutting way down on the number of stops to have the BUZ bus stops and the non-BUZ stops.

I'm still a big fan of the trunk and feeder operation though, and would really like some more of these set up around the place, with the feeders running at a decent frequency.

[dwb]

Happy to, but I would have thought you'd be the loudest against taking the 444 out of KGSBS.

Not at all, do whatever you like with 444 just be careful what you suggest with the 385. And yes I still would like a short version of 385 to run whatever it is called, and I would like it to run INB and I would suggest its implementation should kill 374.

And just so I'm clear, this isn't all about me, it's just about what I'm most familiar with. I've never caught 444, if I did it would probably only be to Indro, and I'd probably get the train.