POLL: 333+109 post Northern Busway to Kedron

[somebody]

Actually is a word to prefix or suffix facts.

What followed is not a fact at all, rather your opinion.

Its cool and all that you can pick up on grammatical errors, but that has little importance in the context of this discussion.
Red herring to make your post look longer. You only needed to say the last line.

Frankly mate, I was and am getting very annoyed by your whole line of argument, which is basically "because, because, because!"

I have offered several supporting arguments for my position; where are your supporting arguments? Your whole thinking seems to be based on the assumption that through routing is awesome, and well, it isn't.  Otherwise everyone would be doing it all the time.  Here's a link: http://www.humantransit.org/2009/08/why-isnt-throughrouting-more-common.html

[Golliwog]

I also don't think the 333 and 109 should be joined. The 77 plus interchange with every UQ route at the PAH is good enough, especially seeing as you don't pay for going through zone 1.

Also, you mentioned reliability, and as I've said before, it becomes much less of an issue with a high frequency route as the head ways should still stay the same.

[somebody]

I also don't think the 333 and 109 should be joined. The 77 plus interchange with every UQ route at the PAH is good enough, especially seeing as you don't pay for going through zone 1.

Also, you mentioned reliability, and as I've said before, it becomes much less of an issue with a high frequency route as the head ways should still stay the same.

Nit pick: You'd actually be interchanging at Buranda.

Increased take up of this sort of travel option would reduce costs of operating the service, and should be encouraged.  Unfortunately, I don't find the arrangements at Buranda at all nice.  Bad enough to have to climb stairs/use a lift, but that there are twice as many stairs as there needs to be is annoying, as is the flat bits between the stairs around the lift wells.  Hope you know what I mean.

[Gazza]

Actually is a word to prefix or suffix facts.

What followed is not a fact at all, rather your opinion.

Its cool and all that you can pick up on grammatical errors, but that has little importance in the context of this discussion.
Red herring to make your post look longer. You only needed to say the last line.

Frankly mate, I was and am getting very annoyed by your whole line of argument, which is basically "because, because, because!"

I have offered several supporting arguments for my position; where are your supporting arguments? Your whole thinking seems to be based on the assumption that through routing is awesome, and well, it isn't.  Otherwise everyone would be doing it all the time.  Here's a link: http://www.humantransit.org/2009/08/why-isnt-throughrouting-more-common.html

And you're line of argument was to pick a grammatical error, rather than actually address my actual point that the 333 & 111 do work like rail lines and aren't just ordinary bus routes, which I found annoying.
So lets call it even.

My argument is that those are the two that should be joined because I think they have similar usage profiles.
A uni route is a little too 'seasonal'  and subject to sudden shocks of usage to be paired with a general line haul route.

And if we're talking interchange and trying to minimise the number of changes needed to get anywhere, then I think a strong north south route picks up the greatest number of interchange possibilities.

I think of Boggo Rd, Wooloongabba, and Langlands Parks essentially being short spurs off the 'N-S mainline' and of lesser importance. The mainline should have an 'all stopper' along its whole length, just like a light rail route.

[#Metro]

I agree with Gazza, except for that Gympie Road is a nightmare, so merge only when that is Class A or Class B to Chermside.

[Golliwog]

The 77 has a stop outside the PAH, not sure where exactly, but my mate does it daily as he works at UQ, and he loves only paying for 1 zone to get from Windsor to UQ.

I understand your annoyance at the extra stairs, but its a minor thing and this way there isn't 3 levels to the structure. KISS principles. I've done it a number of times and it's fine, my pet hate though is the lack of PIDs up the top, you don't know if the bus you can hear coming while you traverse the stairs is yours or not.

I don't think you need to wait for class A all the way to Chermside, sure you'll have delays in traffic, but you already have that with the 333 as is, you cut down significantly on the number of buses through CC in peak, and with a low headway route like a BUZ route, delays to an individual service don't matter much to a waiting pax as traffic should roughly effect all buses the same so the 5 minute headway should remain unchanged. The only issue I can for see is SEB bound pax being unable to board in the city due to CC bound pax from the north.

[Gazza]

I agree with Gazza, except for that Gympie Road is a nightmare, so merge only when that is Class A or Class B to Chermside.

I know there are buslanes past Lutwyche Centro, but are there ones from the end of the Busway to Chermside? If not there should be until the main busway gets built.

Bad enough to have to climb stairs/use a lift, but that there are twice as many stairs as there needs to be is annoying, as is the flat bits between the stairs around the lift wells.  Hope you know what I mean.

Haha, my fave bit of the station is the fact they built a steel over bridge, when they could have just had the crossing on land above the tunnel about 2m further back.
Same thing at Garden City too.
lol.

[somebody]

And you're line of argument was to pick a grammatical error,

Not at all.  The clear implication was that I was wrong, it wasn't really a grammatical error, but a factual one.

rather than actually address my actual point that the 333 & 111 do work like rail lines and aren't just ordinary bus routes, which I found annoying.

I would say that I had already answered that argument here:

Creates a strong north south line, just like the line pairings on the rail network.

So?  A bus isn't a train and has different priorities.  Our rail network would collapse if we didn't have through running, but if the 88 is anything to go by the bus network would be degraded by increased through running.  Short routes like the 19x, 375, 475, 470 aren't quite so bad. 

Besides, I'd think that a 333+109 would reduce transfers more than a 333+111, and the negative implications of the latter are very much reduced in the former.  Still exist mind you, but I think they are a price worth paying.  The 169+209 still connects Park Rd with UQ Lakes with the current reliability and a reasonable frequency, even out of semester, even if the new 333 becomes less reliable than the 109 was.

My argument is that those are the two that should be joined because I think they have similar usage profiles.

Should be based on how many transfers can be made through journeys shouldn't it?

A uni route is a little too 'seasonal'  and subject to sudden shocks of usage to be paired with a general line haul route.

139 & 29 take a large part of the fall here.  I don't see the issue.

If the network was more effective at UQ Lakes you'd reduce the need for 109s which generally involve interchange at CC, SB or MH.  It's the latter one that I am particularly interested in reducing.

The 77 has a stop outside the PAH,

Interesting.  Never knew about that.  Northbound it's "Okeefe St far side of Wolseley St", southbound "Okeefe St opposite approaching Wolseley St"

Probably wouldn't be more convenient to use that stop as compared to Buranda interchange, but only because of Ipswich Rd being right in the way.

I agree with Gazza, except for that Gympie Road is a nightmare, so merge only when that is Class A or Class B to Chermside.

Class A is never happening.  Is it to be bus lanes (class B AIUI) Kedron-Chermside after the Northern Busway reaches Kedron?

[longboi]

Class A is never happening.  Is it to be bus lanes (class B AIUI) Kedron-Chermside after the Northern Busway reaches Kedron?

It appears to be Class A ROW with a tunnel underneath Kedron cemetery:

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/6123b78d-45b6-43dd-86db-82669bd6490b/northernbuswaykedrontobrackenridgenewsletter1011part4.pdf

[somebody]

Class A is never happening.  Is it to be bus lanes (class B AIUI) Kedron-Chermside after the Northern Busway reaches Kedron?

It appears to be Class A ROW with a tunnel underneath Kedron cemetery:

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/6123b78d-45b6-43dd-86db-82669bd6490b/northernbuswaykedrontobrackenridgenewsletter1011part4.pdf

That's in the unfunded Bracken Ridge extension.  I was referring to the bit opening this year - is it going to be enough to trigger bus lanes in the bit from Kedron to Chermside?  Or are we going to continue to languish in a Class C ROW.

GW, interesting point of view.  Got to say, I think removing the interchange problems, which I still think aren't nice at all, would improve take up of the via Clem 7 option.  Perhaps we should be working more at getting people on to the trains though.  (Just throwing ideas into the air here.)

It would be a fine balancing act though, considering the loadings on the 333 in its current form and then introducing 109 pax to that. However, a frequency upgrade would probably address this and spread the load a bit.

I'd like to point out that we are even considering that a frequency increase could be required shows the strength of the idea.

[Jonas Jade]

While you're onto that, why not a 79 service that provides the fast trip through the clem 7, without the city bit if the patronage from the 333 is going to be so great for the 109?

That would certainly clear out loadings on the 333 bound for UQ etc. and remove the ambiguous transfer.

[longboi]

That's in the unfunded Bracken Ridge extension.  I was referring to the bit opening this year - is it going to be enough to trigger bus lanes in the bit from Kedron to Chermside?  Or are we going to continue to languish in a Class C ROW.

In that case then yeah, most likely class C ROW unless there is some separate project for bus lanes along Gympie Rd.

[longboi]

I'd like to point out that we are even considering that a frequency increase could be required shows the strength of the idea.

True. Even then, my concern with a 109+333 is how pax would behave. Would those students who have previously transferred to 330 or 340 at CC  or even 325/335 in CBD stay on until Chermside? If so, then displacement of pax on the CBD-Chermside section may occur.

[somebody]

While you're onto that, why not a 79 service that provides the fast trip through the clem 7, without the city bit if the patronage from the 333 is going to be so great for the 109?

I'd agree with that, but it wasn't supported here: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6580.0

[Jonas Jade]

AH thanks for the link! Wasn't a member at that time I think the difference and attraction of the 79 wasn't well covered then:

- large time savings and has the potential to be very competitive with road travel times if run frequently - almost non stop from Windsor to UQ!

- clears out UQ pax from 333/330/other routes in the inner city.

- single transfer at Windsor for FG rail pax also bypassing the city.

I know people said take the 77 then transfer, but the 77 isn't frequent enough nor is the connection obvious enough for people to do that but UQ is significant enough a destination that people would probably use it.

[Jonas Jade]

Also 79 could replace the 29 as pax who previously transferred at 'Gabba can change at Mater.

[somebody]

Also 79 could replace the 29 as pax who previously transferred at 'Gabba can change at Mater.

I think we need to look at why people might be using the 109 as a connecting service.  I can accept that it is needed for those on the 300 and the other Toombul routes, 345/Webster Rd probably it's needed also.  In peak hour at least I'm not really convinced that we want Gympie Rd corridor people using the 109 though - it would be much more efficient to channel these people through the Clem 7.  Similarly, I'm completely unconvinced that we want Bulimba people using the 109 either, but these people must use a via South Bank route and interchange at the 'Gabba to avoid the 109.  Be nice if they could use the 231/236 and still be able to reach UQ with 1 change.  Ditto 221/216/227.  I'm not sure what those poor people do actually; probably go via the CBD.

375/380/381/385 people could have a cross town route to Chancellors Place at least in peak IMO.

Ipswich Rd people don't have good options also.  I'd wonder if there should be a 104 extension around the corner to reach the PAH express stop, although that would need to be combined with a fairly significant frequency increase to be useful.

If all these issues were sorted out, I would think that a 333+109 would meet demand relatively easily.  I could be wrong though.

[Mr X]

People on the 230/235 can use the 29.

[somebody]

People on the 230/235 can use the 29.

Can, but doesn't mean they will.

People on the 227 can't use the 29.  Well, at least not without a long walk or connecting via 230/235.

[Golliwog]

Haven't looked at near map re: the 77 PAH bus stop location, but can't pax cross Ipswich rd on the big cycle/per bridge they built when they built the bus way. It connects right into the bus way station. Before the reroute of the 209 PAH had the interchange advantage of having all 4 UQ routes, not just the two south side ones. Now, probably not so big a deal, though waiting at the O'Keefe St portal lights tended to take ages when I caught it.

I think if UQ bound pax from the Gympie Rd corridor is the problem, run them through on the 77 (I don't think you need a UQ specific route), it's much faster. My mate has done it a few times when he had things to do in the CBD and reakons by the time he's at the CC getting off the 333, if he'd taken the 77 he'd be at UQ by then.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Haven't looked at near map re: the 77 PAH bus stop location, but can't pax cross Ipswich rd on the big cycle/per bridge they built when they built the bus way. It connects right into the bus way station. Before the reroute of the 209 PAH had the interchange advantage of having all 4 UQ routes, not just the two south side ones. Now, probably not so big a deal, though waiting at the O'Keefe St portal lights tended to take ages when I caught it.

The stop is located at pretty much the Eastern/Southern Busway enterance off O'Keefe Street before turning right and heading into the Clem 7.

http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.497151,153.036486&z=22&t=h&nmd=20110113

[somebody]

Haven't looked at near map re: the 77 PAH bus stop location, but can't pax cross Ipswich rd on the big cycle/per bridge

Can, but that would be a pretty long walk, if you are heading from O'Keefe St to PAH station.

[Golliwog]

Haven't looked at near map re: the 77 PAH bus stop location, but can't pax cross Ipswich rd on the big cycle/per bridge

Can, but that would be a pretty long walk, if you are heading from O'Keefe St to PAH station.

Not really. It's only a few hundred meters.

[somebody]

Haven't looked at near map re: the 77 PAH bus stop location, but can't pax cross Ipswich rd on the big cycle/per bridge

Can, but that would be a pretty long walk, if you are heading from O'Keefe St to PAH station.

Not really. It's only a few hundred meters.

In nearmap I make it 280m.  Which makes it a 560m round trip.  Plus the additional walking to/from Ipswich Rd.