Rockets esp 118, from: "Article: Drewvale is looming as a election hot spot"

[Gazza]

Do you just like to disagree with me?  When I was making the opposite argument re: the 344 you took the opposite position.  There are so many less useful routes in Brisbane than the 118.

Simon, I thought it was you that liked to Disagree with people, eg:

As for your other suggestions, I don't think I could disagree more with this whole plan!

I understand I just strongly disagree with the whole concept.

Disagree with almost every word!

It just seems there is a general consensus that the bus network needs cleaning up, but you are always the first to disagree with what are quite often good ideas.

Eg if it is a bus route you dont like, it needs to go right away, its a total waste of resources, yada yada yada.

If its a route someone else wants to change, then their idea is generally "not worth worrying about" and there is, without fail, other worse routes we 'should' be worrying about.

[somebody]

I don't think so.

[STB]

I concur with Gazza on this.  The 118 existed before the BUZ and Richlands came online, this particular estate in Heathwood is within the catchment for both the BUZ in particular and the rail via route 462 and 465.  I'm not comfy with them having a dedicated rocket which in reality only really services this little development and not much else.

I'd want to see morning loading stats on this one.  And Heathwood isn't served by the BUZ, unless you count a 1.5km+ walk as acceptable.  I think the morning frequency on the 100 implies enough demand to justify rocket(s).

By this logic we should remove the 201 for example.

What part of 'transfer' do you not understand?  Delete the 118 and you free up service KMs that can be used to boost the frequency of the 462/465, heck even the 100 and 534.   The 257 is gone for this reason, they are within a catchment where they can use other services to transfer onto services to get them into the city!  Yes, they might whinge and moan a bit, but this is mass transport, not a taxi service!

Much of the 118's catchment isn't even on the 462/465 route.

At least the 257 had reportedly low loadings.

When there was a poll on "BUZ 100 or 101", the 101 got no real support.  People wanted the run through to the CBD.

Do you just like to disagree with me?  When I was making the opposite argument re: the 344 you took the opposite position.  There are so many less useful routes in Brisbane than the 118.

Well that's a bit of a childish response IMO .  

Simon, it's justified when you have a bus service only servicing a single small community running all the way to the city.  Most other rockets are actually quite good and needed as they service multiple communities before running into the city via the fastest and most direct route possible.  The point of an express/rocket route isn't to get to somewhere faster but is to do with crowd management, managing the loads between multiple services and giving the option for people to access those services.

In the case of the 118, Heathwood and Forest Lake residents have multiple options, heck, in that small development they have THREE bus routes to choose from that will get them to Forest Lake where they can transfer, TWO of them continue on to Richlands station.  Now, surely the resources would be better used and managed by getting those residents to access existing frequent services, rather than giving them what could be called really a personal taxi service to the city, which only saves on really about 10mins at its most.

And of course, loadings should be looked at before any final decision. RBOT don't make the decisions, that's up to TransLink, and of course they would look at the Go Card data and look at various things including operational issues and resources (drivers, buses etc) to see if the idea is worthwhile before either accepting or rejecting.

I'm happy to jump on a few 118s when I head back to uni and I'll be happy to report back the loadings (makes it far easier to get back to the city so I can go home, now route 100 is a BUZ).

[STB]

I'll just add to my previous post that the 118 WAS NEEDED when Richlands and BUZ 100 didn't exist, it was justified.  Now, I'd call it into question since that extra capacity of both the railway, additional routes to Richlands station and the upgrading of route 100 to a BUZ has been built into the network down in that area.

[somebody]

In the case of the 118, Heathwood and Forest Lake residents have multiple options, heck, in that small development they have THREE bus routes to choose from that will get them to Forest Lake where they can transfer, TWO of them continue on to Richlands station.  Now, surely the resources would be better used and managed by getting those residents to access existing frequent services, rather than giving them what could be called really a personal taxi service to the city, which only saves on really about 10mins at its most.
BUZ).

I don't agree, for reasons already discussed.

I'm happy to jump on a few 118s when I head back to uni and I'll be happy to report back the loadings (makes it far easier to get back to the city so I can go home, now route 100 is a BUZ).

That'd be interesting.  Although I want to know what it's like in the morning.  IMO, evening I wouldn't be surprised if it underachieves, like almost every other rocket in SEQ.

[Gazza]

I think rockets underachieve in the afternoon, not only because of stop locations, but because in the afternoon finish times are more variable so TUAG becomes more attractive.

In the morning, you can set your alarm and live fairly predictably around a half hourly rocket.

In the evening, any sort of delay getting out of work/uni/shopping on time makes them less useful

[somebody]

I think rockets underachieve in the afternoon, not only because of stop locations, but because in the afternoon finish times are more variable so TUAG becomes more attractive.

In the morning, you can set your alarm and live fairly predictably around a half hourly rocket.

In the evening, any sort of delay getting out of work/uni/shopping on time makes them less useful

The effect you are thinking of in the evening wouldn't matter if it wasn't for the city stop locations problem.

[#Metro]

Saw the 118 Rocket passing me at Griffith University at 8:35 am this morning.
Almost empty. Air parcels!!

Note there was a small bus jam at Griffith (friction type congestion) too.

Personally I think there should be a service Richlands - Inala - Forest Lake - Browns Plains and terminate, full time.

[Gazza]

I think rockets underachieve in the afternoon, not only because of stop locations, but because in the afternoon finish times are more variable so TUAG becomes more attractive.

In the morning, you can set your alarm and live fairly predictably around a half hourly rocket.

In the evening, any sort of delay getting out of work/uni/shopping on time makes them less useful

The effect you are thinking of in the evening wouldn't matter if it wasn't for the city stop locations problem.

You kidding? So if it was a 20 min wait till the next rocket, or 10 min till the next buz at this stop, what would you use?

[somebody]

I think rockets underachieve in the afternoon, not only because of stop locations, but because in the afternoon finish times are more variable so TUAG becomes more attractive.

In the morning, you can set your alarm and live fairly predictably around a half hourly rocket.

In the evening, any sort of delay getting out of work/uni/shopping on time makes them less useful

The effect you are thinking of in the evening wouldn't matter if it wasn't for the city stop locations problem.

You kidding? So if it was a 20 min wait till the next rocket, or 10 min till the next buz at this stop, what would you use?

How many rockets actually have 20 minute frequency?  Not much point in bothering at those frequencies.

Seems like you want to get rid of rockets.  How would you handle the ensuing bottleneck along the Mater Hill-South Bank-Cultural Centre stretch in peak hour then?

[#Metro]

How many rockets actually have 20 minute frequency?  Not much point in bothering at those frequencies.

Seems like you want to get rid of rockets.  How would you handle the ensuing bottleneck along the Mater Hill-South Bank-Cultural Centre stretch in peak hour then?

We need to understand the TransLink logic as to why Rocket 118 was introduced in the first place. Personally I would rather prefer a 100 shadowing rocket service, let's call it R100 (since all the other numbers are taken). Why not just do that?

The 118 goes from Inala/Forest Lake to Garden City, but given the loadings, perhaps it could be terminated at Garden City or 8 Mile Plains and people transfer to the other bazillion other rockets that leave from there such as 161.

[somebody]

The 118 goes from Inala/Forest Lake to Garden City, but given the loadings, perhaps it could be terminated at Garden City or 8 Mile Plains and people transfer to the other bazillion other rockets that leave from there such as 161.

A single service carrying air isn't enough to write it off completely.

Actually there aren't a Bazillion other rockets serving Garden City and going via the busway at least from BT - 156, 162 are the only ones I can think of.  Probably several Logan and a few Veolia ones though.

[#Metro]

A single service carrying air isn't enough to write it off completely.

AIR! In the middle of PEAK HOUR!!

Yes, I agree, let's see if anyone else spots this bus and take note and post the loadings on here. We might get a better picture that way.

Actually there aren't a Bazillion other rockets serving Garden City and going via the busway at least from BT - 156, 162 are the only ones I can think of.  Probably several Logan and a few Veolia ones though.

More than enough to accommodate connection by the few that use the service.

[Gazza]

I think rockets underachieve in the afternoon, not only because of stop locations, but because in the afternoon finish times are more variable so TUAG becomes more attractive.

In the morning, you can set your alarm and live fairly predictably around a half hourly rocket.

In the evening, any sort of delay getting out of work/uni/shopping on time makes them less useful

The effect you are thinking of in the evening wouldn't matter if it wasn't for the city stop locations problem.

You kidding? So if it was a 20 min wait till the next rocket, or 10 min till the next buz at this stop, what would you use?

How many rockets actually have 20 minute frequency?  Not much point in bothering at those frequencies.

Seems like you want to get rid of rockets.  How would you handle the ensuing bottleneck along the Mater Hill-South Bank-Cultural Centre stretch in peak hour then?

Well, the 118 has 20 min frequency PM.

Anyway, I'd want to get rid of random niche rockets.
What I want to see is that the rockets follow the parent route (BUZ), but skipping stops, and the BUZ and Rocket sharing the same stop location, so it works like an express/all stops train line.

[#Metro]

Anyway, I'd want to get rid of random niche rockets.

Exactly. The BUZ services usually come under high load during this time anyhow.

Can someone generate a list of rockets so we can pick them over?

[#Metro]

I don't even think the 118 saves that much time - maybe 6 minutes or so versus the BUZ 100 when pure in-vehicle time is compared?
The higher frequency of the 100 (about 10 minutes max wait) means that it would be faster overall to catch the 100.

The saving feature of 118 is that it goes to Garden City, so there is a mobility feature there - you can't really do that on 100 at all, however, that only
covers the route up to Garden City, and is not really a justification for running it all the way to the CBD.

A rocket to support the 100 would work nicely, tracing the BUZ 100 route and once it leaves Inala and hits the motorway it can run express stopping only at say, Chardons Corner and PA hospital and then go into the Eastern Busway via O'Keefe Street and up into the Captain Cook Bridge and City. The rocket could be slotted in between the BUZ 100 services so that you would not have to wait longer than 5 minutes max in peak.

[somebody]

Can someone generate a list of rockets so we can pick them over?

IIRC:
Arguably: 107/108  Peak only but not termed "Rockets", they are all stops.

114 - Rocket of 112
118 - Rocket of outer 100
119 - Rocket of 120
121 - Rocket of 116
129 - Rocket of (mostly outer) 130
131 - Rocket of 130, slightly different route
133 - Rocket of inner 130+mid 111
137 - Rocket of inner 130/140
141 - Rocket of outer 140
142 - Bullet of far 140
151 - Mains Rd/Gowan Rd rocket of mainly 150
153 - Gowan Rd (mostly) rocket of 150
156/157 - Warrigal Rd rocket of 150
162 - Rocket to Garden City/8MP (only)
171 - Rocket of 170 to Holland Park
173 - Rocket of 172
176 - Rocket to Logan Rd beyond Holland Rd
178 - Rocket of 177/183
179 - Rocket of 180
181 - Rocket of part of 180 + some random rds
186 - Rocket of outer 185
189 - AM only rocket of inner 180 - combines with 176 to cover Logan Rd beyond Juliette St
195 - New Farm "Rocket" along Brunswick St (196, sort of)
201 - Rocket of outer 200 - Carindale Heights
205 - Rocket of peak only service area and part of outer 202, part of 200/201 route
207 - Rocket of inner 200/222
208 - Rocket of 202
211 - Rocket of 210
216 - Rocket of 215
217 - Rocket as per 207
221 - Rocket of 220
231 - Rocket of 230
236 - Rocket of 235
331 - Rocket of 330
332 - Rocket of 333
339 - Rocket of 335
341 - Rocket of 340
343 - Rocket of 345
351 - Rocket of 350
356 - Rocket of 353 (IIRC)
357 - Rocket of 359/peak only service area
376 - Rocket of Stafford side of 375
382 - Rocket of 380
383 - Rocket of 381
416 - Rocket of 470 Duke St
426 - Rocket of 425
431 - Rocket of 433
436 - Rocket of 435
443 - Rocket of 444
446 - Rocket of 430
455 - Rocket of 454
456 - Rocket of 453
461 - Rocket of 460

City Precincts:
206, 136, 457-9, 344, 384.

Don't shoot me if I've gotten something wrong there.  I'm confining myself to BT routes.  Short workings I haven't listed.

Comfortable with most of the above, but I'd remove 217, 151, 457-9, 344, 461 and straighten 136 & 153, serve Margaret/Charlotte with the 455/456.  Convert the 142 into 546 trips. Shorten the 133, reconsider the 129/131 or at least give them logical stopping patterns.  And make the 156 city precincts so that Garden City still has this service.

I positively hate the random numbering system!

EDIT: missed 217, 416, 356, 119, 384

[#Metro]

173 - Rocket of 172

172 is such an infrequent bus route and it has its own rocket! 

[SurfRail]

Can someone generate a list of rockets so we can pick them over?

I'm going to list all the "peak flow only" service I know about, irrespective of destination/origin.  These are services which run only one way in the morning and t'other in the afternoon – including special short-workings on what are otherwise full-service routes.

These are only the metropolitan ones – there are a few examples in the Gold Coast,  Sunshine Coast, Northern and Western Regions which I won't bother with, being so isolated from the issue at hand.

107
108
114
118
P119
121
P129
131
P133
134
136
P137
138 (yet to be commissioned)
P141
P142
145
P151
153
156
P157
162
171
P173
P176
178
P179
181
186
P189
195
P201
P205
P206
P207
P208
P211
213
214
P216
P217
P221
P231
P236
243
251
257 (to be decommissioned shortly)
261
265
267
271
273
275
279
281
299
302
304 (to be decommissioned shortly)
305
308 (Chermside to Toombul leg)
322 (Chermside to Wavell Heights short workings)
P331
P332
P339
P341
P343
P344
351
352
P356
357
363
P374
376
382
383
P384
396
399
416
P426
427
431
436
P443
446
451
452
P455
P456
P457
P458
P459
P461
P546
551
557
561
566
P569
571
573
575
577
579
P581

[#Metro]

I'm going to list all the "peak flow only" service I know about, irrespective of destination/origin.  These are services which run only one way in the morning and t'other in the afternoon – including special short-workings on what are otherwise full-service routes.

Great. Roughly half the BT network doesn't exist outside of peak hour!

[somebody]

402 is NOT peak flow only.

[somebody]

134/299 = Counter peak only.  Do these count?

[SurfRail]

134/299 = Counter peak only.  Do these count?

There are others in there (eg 145, 322 shorties).  I think it's pertinent for discussion - ideally peak hour (in any direction) shouldn't involve aberrant routes, just higher capacity and speeds. 

There are some I haven't included but probably could (eg 161 and 183 which are effectively "full-time rockets" which don't really need to go to the city).

[somebody]

I guess you could easily argue that Wishart Rd shouldn't have its own rocket service so the 171/181 should be revised, and that the 179 doesn't need to extend to Garden City.  Just have 2 rockets which serving the length of Broadwater Rd & Newnham Rds, perhaps the one covering the east of Broadwater Rd covering the 180s Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Rd service.

I'd be thinking of truncating the 179 at Cresthaven.

Some might say that's too much variation.

[mufreight]

All of which has nothing to do with the original post in this thread.

[Gazza]

Who cares?
It's a productive discussion in it's own right, and moderators are always free to shift posts to new locations.

[Fares_Fair]

oh!
It's usually easier to follow single discussions, concentrating on buses as this is, in one location, that's all.
We all know how discussions can move around and head off on tangents, and probably we are all guilty of it at some point.

PS I didn't know that moderators had that capability.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[david]

Back when Sinnamon Park got the new 451 route to Darra Station, BT thought that the new route justified chopping off the 456 rocket to the area.

Best decision ever.

Start with CUTTING the 461. The 118 is slightly more palatable.

[somebody]

Back when Sinnamon Park got the new 451 route to Darra Station, BT thought that the new route justified chopping off the 456 rocket to the area.

Best decision ever.

Start with CUTTING the 461. The 118 is slightly more palatable.

451 has its own limitations.  It serves the same area as half of the 103 but comes on the opposite side of Darra railway station.

[SurfRail]

You can see where a lot of these services exist for historical purposes only.  For instance, I find it difficult to believe the 181 is anything other than a concession to people who previously had a direct service from Wishart Rd to the Valley...

Time for a complete re-write, including repositioning the bus stops.  We need something like the Unsworth Review up here.

[david]

Back when Sinnamon Park got the new 451 route to Darra Station, BT thought that the new route justified chopping off the 456 rocket to the area.

Best decision ever.

Start with CUTTING the 461. The 118 is slightly more palatable.

451 has its own limitations.  It serves the same area as half of the 103 but comes on the opposite side of Darra railway station.

I was merely making a point regarding how TransLink needs to learn how to cut services for the greater benefit of the Brisbane area, rather than be too scared to, especially when it comes to the 461. Get rid of that first. We can worry about the flaws of the Forest Lake/Heathwood region after that happens.

P.S. If anyone knows of any justification to keeping the 461, please let me know.

[#Metro]

Muahahahah

Route 198

CUT!!

[somebody]

Back when Sinnamon Park got the new 451 route to Darra Station, BT thought that the new route justified chopping off the 456 rocket to the area.

Best decision ever.

Start with CUTTING the 461. The 118 is slightly more palatable.

451 has its own limitations.  It serves the same area as half of the 103 but comes on the opposite side of Darra railway station.

I was merely making a point regarding how TransLink needs to learn how to cut services for the greater benefit of the Brisbane area, rather than be too scared to, especially when it comes to the 461. Get rid of that first. We can worry about the flaws of the Forest Lake/Heathwood region after that happens.

P.S. If anyone knows of any justification to keeping the 461, please let me know.

Alright.  How about it being faster between College Ave and Milton than any other option?

I'd still cut it, and I agree with your point.

But they are beyond being unwilling to cut.  Adding the 217 because they were unwilling to add a stop to the 207!  What was that???  Adding the 222 to use the Eastern Busway because they were unwilling to change the 200 and 204?  They're awful at what they do, and the figures show it in the farebox recovery, stagnant growth etc.

[#Metro]

But they are beyond being unwilling to cut.  Adding the 217 because they were unwilling to add a stop to the 207!  What was that???  Adding the 222 to use the Eastern Busway because they were unwilling to change the 200 and 204?  They're awful at what they do, and the figures show it in the farebox recovery, stagnant growth etc.

That is MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in duplication - waste - every year. Same with P88 - and for what? Save a 1 minute walk.

I wouldn't mind if 203 + 204 were routed that way (anyone at Stones Corner can catch the busway now to Carindale) which would allow the BUZ 222 to be boosted to a service every 10 minutes, which is plenty of frequency.

CUT !!

[Gazza]

Alright.  How about it being faster between College Ave and Milton than any other option?

I think a lot of routes could be beaten by alternatives, but this is really unproductive because it splits pax and resources.

Imagine if all of Forest Lake basically fed into Richlands. 100 still exists because it makes sense from a 'coverage' perspective (spacing of 'good' routes evenly across the city) to get to destinations on that side of town, and the CBD is just the logical finish point.

Anyway, getting back to it. If more of the network fed rail, there becomes a much stronger case for directing investment onto heavily used lines because thats where the pax are put. Small fixes over time that make the line really work well.
You think of the money being spent on rockets (and its not just the cost of each service, its garaging, maintenance capacity etc) that compete with rail, and they currently beat the train by a few minutes.

But you then have to consider that if the money spent there was spent on stuff like resginalling or improving a section of track, or rebuilding a station bus interchange, to save say a minute of travel time, multiplied across the network, on multiple track sections, done over a decade bit by bit, with the funds not being spent on competing routes, we would then have a rail network that is faster, and attractive not only to pax transferring, but to everyone along the line who benefits from the time saving.

[#Metro]

Anyway, getting back to it. If more of the network fed rail, there becomes a much stronger case for directing investment onto heavily used lines because thats where the pax are put. Small fixes over time that make the line really work well.
You think of the money being spent on rockets (and its not just the cost of each service, its garaging, maintenance capacity etc) that compete with rail, and they currently beat the train by a few minutes.

Journey time = waiting time + in vehicle time

Rockets might be faster but they're also less frequent in many parts so on balance, it really might be more like ~5 min time saving for many services.

[somebody]

You can see where a lot of these services exist for historical purposes only.  For instance, I find it difficult to believe the 181 is anything other than a concession to people who previously had a direct service from Wishart Rd to the Valley...

Time for a complete re-write, including repositioning the bus stops.  We need something like the Unsworth Review up here.

The 181 does also serve the top part of Newnham Rd, who's only other service is the 174.  Perhaps these people should deal with walking either from Cavendish/Wecker or Broadwater Rd.  There's 1.3km involved so most people would still have a service within 800m.

Hmm, this is interesting.  I think you could get away with:
(a) Truncating the 179 at Cresthaven
(b) Removing the 181
(c) Running the 171 along Broadwater Rd until Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Rd then right (O/B) onto that road.  Service would then be far more logical.
(d) Extending the 189 around to the "Holland Rd" stop
(e) Moving the 179 to Cavendish Rd between Chatsworth Rd and Holland Rd, and actually serving selected stops along there (unlike the 181 which just traverses this stretch).

That would reduce the peak hour specials in the area to:
171, 176, 179.
And also remove the notion that service exists on Wishart Rd peak only.

Perhaps (e) only makes sense if the 180 does that also.

[STB]

The 181 does stop at those stops you mention between Cavendish Rd and Holland Rd, caught it once wondering how it worked and it picked up several pax along that section of road.

[somebody]

The 181 does stop at those stops you mention between Cavendish Rd and Holland Rd, caught it once wondering how it worked and it picked up several pax along that section of road.

Hmm, the PDF timetable is incorrect then.  It should note this.  Other timetables would note it on the stop list AND the map.  HTML timetable agrees with you, but it doesn't stop between Cavendish Rd and Buranda.  I guess that service is provided by the 208.