North West Corridor discussion

[ozbob]

Media release 26 February 2012

SEQ: Core Frequent Network: The Northwest Corridor



RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has called for service improvements to the Northwest Corridor.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"RAIL Back On Track has noted the state member for Everton, Murray Wyatt MP, is circulating a petition calling for more frequent bus services in the northwest corridor. We have long argued that the fastest, cheapest way to improve the public transport system in Brisbane is a targeted, selective boost of services to create a Core Frequent Network covering Brisbane with a network of selective trunk, high-capacity, high-frequency, traffic-prioritised workhorse rail, ferry and bus routes (1, 2)."

"Suburbs on the northwest corridor are a service poor region in the BUZ network. We believe that BUZification of either the 350 Everton Park or 359 Albany Creek/Eatons Hill and replacement of the Great Circle line in this area with a new, faster, more direct bus line from Indooroopilly to Brookside shopping centre direct via South Pine and Old Northern Road is required."

"This would allow other non-BUZ services to be converted into frequent feeder services feeding Enoggera rail interchange, connect with increased frequency Ferny Grove line trains, and also allow a generalised frequency boost to buses in the northwest corridor. Better frequency directly stimulates patronage. Using connections rather than direct services gives high frequency to more people for the same fixed budget."

"In the long term, high car use will be tackled by clawing back market share from cars by making it easier for people to dispense with car ownership altogether - that is to own fewer or no cars. And for that to happen,the focus must be taken off peak-hour services and put on all day frequent services such as Bus Upgrade Zones (BUZ) and Train Upgrade Zones (TUZ) and the Core Frequent Network."

"RAIL Back On Track has welcomed the LNP proposed policy announcement of increased train frequency - 15 minutes on the Ferny Grove line weekdays between the peaks, however without frequent weekend and evening services, people will still need to own cars, and thus will not be easier for people to dispense with car ownership altogether and thus more likely to use them in peak hour (3, 4)."

"Focus on the core!"

References:

1. Building a Core Frequent Network   http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5173.0

2. Fight for more buses - Murray Watt MP  http://www.murraywattmp.com/01_cms/details.asp?ID=75

3. LNP Plan means no need for timetables  http://lnp.org.au/news/leader-of-the-lnp/lnp-train-plan-means-no-need-for-timetables

4. Jarrett Walker (Audio) - Transit Isn't Just for Peak Periods—It Needs to Be There All Day
http://www.infrastructureusa.org/guest-on-the-infra-blog-jarrett-walker-author-human-transit-how-clearer-thinking-about-public-transit-can-enrich-our-communities-and-our-lives/

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[achiruel]

In an ideal world, I'd like to see both BUZzed, however given the choice I'd rather BUZ 351 as a full-time route rather than 350 or 359.

359+crosstown route would service Wardell St.

[somebody]

In an ideal world, I'd like to see both BUZzed, however given the choice I'd rather BUZ 351 as a full-time route rather than 350 or 359.

359+crosstown route would service Wardell St.

I'd keep the 359 on Kelvin Grove Rd.  I favour this being the home of longer distance BUZes as its the faster route.  Connecting to Ashgrove shops could be a reason to keep the 350 though, IMO only if the Everton Park-Brookside connection isn't increased.

This is what I am thinking of re:Wardell St, takes in the 360 except for its Herston bit:


Probably the concept can be refined a bit.  Perhaps extend to Ferny Grove rather than Mitchelton.

[aldonius]

Probably the concept can be refined a bit.  Perhaps extend to Ferny Grove rather than Mitchelton.

Assuming a 360 extended to FG + CFN-style 358, http://g.co/maps/5pzy2
Incidentally, IMO we should be leaving to 5xx numbers alone for the GCL replacements and using 91, 92, 93 and 94 or similar - maybe even rearranging such that x9x is always a 'crosstown'. Thoughts?

[somebody]

396 becomes full time then?

[aldonius]

Yeah, 396 goes full time, even if hourly. The 360 to FG if at 30min frequency is still a big upgrade for those bits of the 398 it replaces.

I forgot to mark that the 397/8 is to run right past Patricks Rd State School in peaks (which is what the 397 does now) and get to FG via Samford Rd. If cash is really tight, then it can become peak-only.

[#Metro]

I like the 359 to be BUZzed because it goes straight to Albany Creek/Eatons Hill which currently has awful PT and it can go directly down the main arterial roads there.

The 350 is the other contender - it services roads with no BUZ on it (can't remember which one the 345 goes down) as that serves Ashgrove, while 359 does not.

In an ideal world, you'd BUZ both but the whole principle of the Core Frequent Network is to DO THE MINIMUM to get the BASIC CORE FREQUENT NETWORK in place. Once this is complete, you could add other BUZ services, but they would be non-core.

[aldonius]

The only BUZ in my above plan is the 358 

+1 to 359 (though I think the system needs a general shakeup and renumbering such that the XX0's, XXX's and XX5's form the CFN - a different story for a different thread).
For reference, the 345 goes C'Ctr to Aspley Hypermarket via INB Normanby KG/Enoggera Rd, Shand St, Appleby Rd/Maundrell Tce.

[Gazza]

Does the bus numbering actually matter in the scheme of things? Seems like foamer fantasy stuff to me....This idea of everything being perfect.
What I care about is Wether the bus is direct and frequent. Numbers have no bearing on that outcome.

[#Metro]

Does the bus numbering actually matter in the scheme of things? Seems like foamer fantasy stuff to me....This idea of everything being perfect.
What I care about is Wether the bus is direct and frequent. Numbers have no bearing on that outcome.

Odd ending numbers generally signal some kind of rocket service, so renumbering might be something that needs to be looked at for 359 if that were to be Buzzed. The 358 should be re-numbered when it is upgraded to a 59X type number so that people know that it is a cross-town service.

[somebody]

Does the bus numbering actually matter in the scheme of things? Seems like foamer fantasy stuff to me....This idea of everything being perfect.
What I care about is Wether the bus is direct and frequent. Numbers have no bearing on that outcome.

Odd ending numbers generally signal some kind of rocket service, so renumbering might be something that needs to be looked at for 359 if that were to be Buzzed. The 358 should be re-numbered when it is upgraded to a 59X type number so that people know that it is a cross-town service.

Except when they don't.  E.g. 446, 456, 458,  344, 109, 332.

I wouldn't mind a bit more logic to rocket numbering.  Some are BUZ+1, others BUZ-1, still others a completely unrelated number.

[Mr X]

199, 196, 111, 222, 333, 444 you could argue as "inconsistent" with mainstream route numbering as they don't end in xx0 or xx5..

[#Metro]

We should aim to maintain some semblance of logic as the rule, even if there has to be some exceptions.
The idea of using random numbering - where you draw the bus number out of a lotto swirl-bin is hardly appealing to me.

[SurfRail]

We should aim to maintain some semblance of logic as the rule, even if there has to be some exceptions.
The idea of using random numbering - where you draw the bus number out of a lotto swirl-bin is hardly appealing to me.

That is the Adelaide method (eg T221X, G10B, M44, 105, J7, 490, 208P, W90 - all actual route numbers!)

[HappyTrainGuy]

I like the similar route numbers as it gives an idea where the route is heading.

[#Metro]

That is the Adelaide method (eg T221X, G10B, M44, 105, J7, 490, 208P, W90 - all actual route numbers!)

I hate Adelaide public transport. In fact, I think it has one of the worst run systems in Australia.
It is like a comedy of errors! They even had a note on their website about F buses and how to understand them.

Mind you, I get a bit flustered when I see all these P buses running around, personally I think the P buses are mostly a waste of time
and 99% of them should disappear and be folded back into their parent routes for simplicity and frequency. The rockets are also a huge
mess- when I stand at the busway I don't even know where they are all going!

[somebody]

On the SEB, if it says "Rocket" and is heading inbound it is going to Elizabeth St or QSBS (157).  I can't think of an exception to that rule.

[aldonius]

On the SEB, if it says "Rocket" and is heading inbound it is going to Elizabeth St or QSBS (157).  I can't think of an exception to that rule.

That's good.

Pardon my ignorance, but if route XYW is a normal route and XYV a rocketised peakhour special version of it, would they typically share the outer section with the rocket running express from a certain point? If so, why not mark the peakhour specials as R-XYW and the corresponding shortworking (if applicable) as S-XYW?

[SurfRail]

It's hard enough as it is.  The silly 7-segment displays BT use can only display 3 digits (0-9), you can get extra on the front only if you play with the software. 

The older displays on the Metroliners and the B10Ls - apparently, it would need to be confirmed - are not capable of displaying alphanumeric route numbers at all.

[somebody]

On the SEB, if it says "Rocket" and is heading inbound it is going to Elizabeth St or QSBS (157).  I can't think of an exception to that rule.

That's good.

Pardon my ignorance, but if route XYW is a normal route and XYV a rocketised peakhour special version of it, would they typically share the outer section with the rocket running express from a certain point? If so, why not mark the peakhour specials as R-XYW and the corresponding shortworking (if applicable) as S-XYW?

There's no hard and fast rules, I'm afraid.

Hopefully, they will say "non stop to X" O/B and "non stop from X" I/B in cases like the 443 and 201.  Others just say "via Captain Cook Bridge" or "via Milton Rd" as they are going a faster way (hopefully).