Do we need northbound PM peak 66 runs?

[somebody]

What I am thinking of is increasing frequency of the 333 and 330 without tightening up the headways at KGSBS stop 1d (currently 5 minute headways between the 330 & 333 - 340 doesn't run in the peak direction).  222 would be most logical serving stop 1f northbound anyway.

The major problem with getting rid of these is removing the Gabba to Roma St connection.  One possibility is extending the 333 and/or 330 to W'Gabba, however this would be mostly dead running if continued on weekends and evenings.  I think dwb would say that you would have to do so.

Of course, the other option is to just tighten up the headways at stop 1d, which has been done at stop 1a.

[Mr X]

Why do we need to duplicate our already multi-duplicated bus system as it is by extending the 333 to W'Gabba? If you want to get from Gabba to Roma St, not hard to get onto a 200 and swap to a 111/222 at the cultural centre!

[Golliwog]

Why do we need to duplicate our already multi-duplicated bus system as it is by extending the 333 to W'Gabba? If you want to get from Gabba to Roma St, not hard to get onto a 200 and swap to a 111/222 at the cultural centre!

Or a 66.

I am of the opinion that extending some or all of the BUZs etc that terminate at CC to the Gabba would potentially help reduce the bus jams that occur there. I have no figures to back it up, but I often notice people who are hopping on a bus at the CC are only heading south a few stops to South Bank or Mater Hill, and while interchange is simple, you delay 2 buses which also take up platform space which is at a premium during peak. Similarly though I would also support the north bound BUZs that terminate at Roma St being extended to service the busway to at least QUT if not RBWH. Doing both MAY allow for the removal of the 66, or at least a reduction in the number of runs it makes.

[somebody]

Or a 66.

But read the thread title to see the problem with that.

Why do we need to duplicate our already multi-duplicated bus system as it is by extending the 333 to W'Gabba? If you want to get from Gabba to Roma St, not hard to get onto a 200 and swap to a 111/222 at the cultural centre!

That is a valid option, but it would be unpopular as there is now a forced transfer.  I do not think there would be any capacity issue if the 66's southern terminus became the Cultural Centre.

[Golliwog]

But the 66 does run northbound during the PM peak. It's going every 10 minutes until 6.30pm (which is every 5 minutes for most of it during the uni semester).

[somebody]

But the 66 does run northbound during the PM peak. It's going every 10 minutes until 6.30pm (which is every 5 minutes for most of it during the uni semester).

Soooooo, we need the 66 because we already have it?

[Golliwog]

So the way I read your title was as if it implied they don't currently run during peak... 

Having never really seen what loads exist during the PM peak to QUT/RBWH, I would be hesitant to comment on the need for it, but what I would caution against is running extra 333/330 to cope with the extra load from the removal of the 66 if the 333/330s are then just going to be half full once they get onto Bowen Bridge Rd.

[ozbob]

The 66 moves a lot of pax in the PM peak, there is a constant movement of students heading to KG for classes etc.  It is good because it gets them off the other buses.

The 66 is one of the real carriers, albeit short haul on the system.

[Golliwog]

The 66 moves a lot of pax in the PM peak, there is a constant movement of students heading to KG for classes etc.

I thought it would be similar to the UQ Lakes routes in that respect.

The 66 is one of the real carriers, albeit short haul on the system.

That was why I thought if you were going to remove or reduce the 66 you would do it by extending the routes the terminate at Roma St, not increasing the frequency of the existing north bound routes.

[somebody]

The 66 moves a lot of pax in the PM peak, there is a constant movement of students heading to KG for classes etc.  It is good because it gets them off the other buses.

The 66 is one of the real carriers, albeit short haul on the system.

For evening classes?  Great point!

A much improved 393 would help greatly here, although I am thinking that the answer to my OP is: Yes, they are needed.  I'd still wonder about the need for the 5 minute frequency, however.

The 66 moves a lot of pax in the PM peak, there is a constant movement of students heading to KG for classes etc.  It is good because it gets them off the other buses.

The 66 is one of the real carriers, albeit short haul on the system.

I am sure Translink would like to run more 333s in the PM peak, but this cannot be done without tighter headways.  No one can board a 333 at Roma St as they are all full, at least according to anecdotal evidence.  332 doesn't provide very much assistance, partly due to a different stop location, and partly because those stop locations are also mediocre.  Pretty much just provides a near-City Precincts service in spite of using Elizabeth St from George St.

That was why I thought if you were going to remove or reduce the 66 you would do it by extending the routes the terminate at Roma St, not increasing the frequency of the existing north bound routes.

The only Roma St terminating route is the 111.  Unless I'm forgetting something.  Extending selected trips (perhaps all trips?) to QUT KG has merit.

[Golliwog]

And the 222. That would give you 8bph if you did both. I also have no idea about whether or not the 5min frequency is needed, but if you removed the 66 then you could possibly shift one of the other southside BUZ routes over to KGSBS as well (perhaps the 200 to have the same city stops as the 222?)

[somebody]

And the 222. That would give you 8bph if you did both. I also have no idea about whether or not the 5min frequency is needed, but if you removed the 66 then you could possibly shift one of the other southside BUZ routes over to KGSBS as well (perhaps the 200 to have the same city stops as the 222?)

Ah yes, the 222!

That idea has merit, but less so than than moving the 35x into there, and adding trips on the 359.  With the closure of the Countess St ramp, that would also mean that the 350 (assuming it continues via Wardell St) would need to use the Turbot St entrance.

Of course, that works much better with a full time 351 (Kelvin Grove Rd) instead of 350 (Wardell St), as you then could coordinate with the 345 for a 7-8 minute frequency to Kelvin Grove.  If you don't want to do that an argument could be made that the 390 is a better candidate.

[Golliwog]

I would argue for the 390 (though there may be some bias there due to it being almost local to me). But something needs to be done for Bridgeman Downs, though I think they should make better use of the Enogerra Interchange and look at turning some buses back there instead of going all the way to the city. But not all, they do need a trunk route.

Another candidate to go through to RBWH would be the 160, though I know you would prefer that to be scrapped altogether. I'm not sure about removing it, but think it does need to share the same city stops as the 111 if it is to stay.

[somebody]

I would argue for the 390 (though there may be some bias there due to it being almost local to me). But something needs to be done for Bridgeman Downs, though I think they should make better use of the Enogerra Interchange and look at turning some buses back there instead of going all the way to the city. But not all, they do need a trunk route.

Well, there isn't a reason for the 35x without converting the 350s into 351s.  I think there would be a lot of resistance to that.  A number of people use the 350 to travel between Everton Park (and north) and Ashgrove shops.  Closing the Countess St entrance has (I think accidentally) fixed one of my issues with the network - the 350 is now faster I/B by being removed from the busway.

I expect there would be a lot of resistance to putting the 390 underground because it is an all stops route.  Which is a problem only because they are daft.  However, it has an adequate frequency to be useful, weekday daytimes only.  Perhaps they could add some short workings (392/389?) to Enoggera to fill in the gaps.
I'm starting to think that the 390 idea may be more likely.

Another candidate to go through to RBWH would be the 160, though I know you would prefer that to be scrapped altogether. I'm not sure about removing it, but think it does need to share the same city stops as the 111 if it is to stay.

Sounds like you are starting to see the importance of the stop locations.  Which I'm pleased about.  I wish Translink would catch up.

[Golliwog]

Sounds like you are starting to see the importance of the stop locations.  Which I'm pleased about.  I wish Translink would catch up.

Probably not as much as you'd like though!

I still think that having the western routes serving bus stops on Adelaide St outside KGSBS (eg: the 390/380 bus stop) is close enough that the 444 could stay in there and it would be acceptable. Which is kind of why I think the 390 could still stay on the streets. Though I don't think even now that KGSBS is at capacity in terms of routes though. Though I do realise that some of the stops have restrictions, eg:what size buses can/can't use them, as well as some being closer together than others (1A and 1B for example) which can stuff things up.

[somebody]

Sounds like you are starting to see the importance of the stop locations.  Which I'm pleased about.  I wish Translink would catch up.

Probably not as much as you'd like though!

I still think that having the western routes serving bus stops on Adelaide St outside KGSBS (eg: the 390/380 bus stop) is close enough that the 444 could stay in there and it would be acceptable. Which is kind of why I think the 390 could still stay on the streets. Though I don't think even now that KGSBS is at capacity in terms of routes though. Though I do realise that some of the stops have restrictions, eg:what size buses can/can't use them, as well as some being closer together than others (1A and 1B for example) which can stuff things up.

It's not quite at capacity.  Stop 1f only sees 4/hour in the PM peak and 6/hour in the AM peak (OTOH).  1e in the AM and 1a in the PM are above 12/hour last I checked, and this causes some small congestion issues at 1a which aren't too bad only because 1b is theoretically unused.  1c and 1d are @ 12/hour (5 minutes even headway) in the PM peak.

Platform 2 isn't as bad because most routes can stop at the wrong stop and it isn't really an issue.  Only exceptions are 111, 66, 222 and P88.

[Golliwog]

Yeah, I have a suspicion that 1a and 1b were not designed to operate as a big pickup stop but more as drop off stops (like the front stops on platform 2 are used). 1a and 1b should really get combined into the one stop, though having the 2nd set of doors is useful as it allows two buses to board at the same time, though IIRC, they have issues pulling into 1b if theres already a bus in 1c.

[somebody]

Yeah, I have a suspicion that 1a and 1b were not designed to operate as a big pickup stop but more as drop off stops (like the front stops on platform 2 are used). 1a and 1b should really get combined into the one stop, though having the 2nd set of doors is useful as it allows two buses to board at the same time, though IIRC, they have issues pulling into 1b if theres already a bus in 1c.

Not sure there is any difference in the size between 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Wouldn't an easier option be extending the 111 to the RBH. There can't be busses running everywhere because some people don't want to transfer to another service.

[Golliwog]

Yeah, I have a suspicion that 1a and 1b were not designed to operate as a big pickup stop but more as drop off stops (like the front stops on platform 2 are used). 1a and 1b should really get combined into the one stop, though having the 2nd set of doors is useful as it allows two buses to board at the same time, though IIRC, they have issues pulling into 1b if theres already a bus in 1c.

Not sure there is any difference in the size between 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d?

I mean more in terms of spacing between the stops. The ones further down are spaced further apart as they have buses pulling in and out independant of each other, but if when they designed they assumed that 1a and 1b were just for drop offs then you would assume that any bus would just pull into the front bay, and if another got there before the other left then it would just use 1b, and by the time it was empty the bus in 1a would have left as well. 1c, 1d, etc have a bigger spacing as they assumed (in this case, correctly) that buses using those stops would have longer dwells and that the stops would operate independantly of each other.

[somebody]

Wouldn't an easier option be extending the 111 to the RBH. There can't be busses running everywhere because some people don't want to transfer to another service.

QUT KG would probably be enough.  It has to go 1/4 the way there just to turn around.

Could you do a driver change in revenue service in the Normanby bus parking area?

Yeah, I have a suspicion that 1a and 1b were not designed to operate as a big pickup stop but more as drop off stops (like the front stops on platform 2 are used). 1a and 1b should really get combined into the one stop, though having the 2nd set of doors is useful as it allows two buses to board at the same time, though IIRC, they have issues pulling into 1b if theres already a bus in 1c.

Not sure there is any difference in the size between 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d?

I mean more in terms of spacing between the stops. The ones further down are spaced further apart as they have buses pulling in and out independant of each other, but if when they designed they assumed that 1a and 1b were just for drop offs then you would assume that any bus would just pull into the front bay, and if another got there before the other left then it would just use 1b, and by the time it was empty the bus in 1a would have left as well. 1c, 1d, etc have a bigger spacing as they assumed (in this case, correctly) that buses using those stops would have longer dwells and that the stops would operate independantly of each other.

I understood what you meant, but I'm not sure that there is any difference between the stops.

[HappyTrainGuy]

But why not extend it all the way and use the roundabout to turn around. All your doing is adding more loads to the 66, 330, 333, 340 for people that might transfer at the hospital/Normanby.

[Golliwog]

Could you do a driver change in revenue service in the Normanby bus parking area?

I don't see why not. The 385 regularly does one on the side of Coopers Camp Rd (in either direction).

[somebody]

But why not extend it all the way and use the roundabout to turn around. All your doing is adding more loads to the 66, 330, 333, 340 for people that might transfer at the hospital/Normanby.

I see a need for a service which terminates at QUT KG.  It's a source of high loadings.  Terminating at QUT KG would make the service more clearly match the demand.  This would be better from an operating cost perspective.

[Gazza]

But the 66 used to do exactly that, except when the busway extension opened people complained that the service should go to RBWH. Can't do both.

[somebody]

But the 66 used to do exactly that, except when the busway extension opened people complained that the service should go to RBWH. Can't do both.

Indeed it did.  The problem was the truncation of the 393.

I suppose you could extend the 111 to RB&WH and have the 66 revert to QUT KG.  Although that would mean that the 111 becomes longer at times that the 66 isn't running, and would carry a fair amount of air at those times.

[Gazza]

Bear in mind it's not just about QUT, the KG urban village is high density residential and warrants the service at night.

[STB]

Honestly, as a frequent user of the INB and QUT KG.  Leave the 66 as is, extend the 393 to at least KGSBS and BUZ the 330 to fill in a gap on the weekends.  For the lower end of QUT KG/KG Urban Village, either boost the 390 on the weekend or increase the hours for the 364, which is a very infrequent service at the moment and for some unknown reason only operates at night during the week.

[SurfRail]

Honestly, as a frequent user of the INB and QUT KG.  Leave the 66 as is, extend the 393 to at least KGSBS and BUZ the 330 to fill in a gap on the weekends.  For the lower end of QUT KG/KG Urban Village, either boost the 390 on the weekend or increase the hours for the 364, which is a very infrequent service at the moment and for some unknown reason only operates at night during the week.

I wonder if you split the 360 and 361 to run into the busway at Normanby and keep the 363 and 364 for Herston backstreets.

[somebody]

extend the 393 to at least KGSBS

Why wouldn't Roma St be enough?

[somebody]

Poll created, re: QUT KG, here: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6708.0