348 Chermside BUZ via Webster Rd, PCH and Grange

[#Metro]

New BUZ Route Concept - BUZ 348 via Grange and Kedron Brook Road

348 BUZ service through Grange, a suburb which currently has only hourly bus service currently on multiple routes.

Route Description
Route begins at Cultural Centre, then King George Square, Normanby, QUT, Herston, RBWH, follows Kedron Brook Road, Grange Shops, Grange Road, Stafford City Shopping Centre, Webster Road, Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside Shopping Centre (15.0 km).

Background

Gap in the BUZ network, Grange has similar density to Gordon Park which supports BUZ 375 patronage. All sides of Grange has 15-minute bus or train service, but within Grange itself, only hourly services. Suburb is just 5 km from CBD. Webster Road corridor is a north-south arterial in the Northside Road Grid and has buses along it, but those are not frequent.

Patronage would be expected to be similar to BUZ 345 based on route similarity, and additional 2 hospitals on the route. Route is line haul - suburbs to city, as this is expected to maximise patronage and is the most direct routing. Alternative routing via Newmarket Road means destination RBWH would be missed.

Other routes in area - Separate East-West coverage route proposed to run along Days Road, Grange Shops, Raymont road to Brookside Shopping Centre. Lutwyche and Chermside also accessible by transfer either at Stafford Shopping Centre (to 375) or at Federation Street Station (various routes) on the Northern Busway.

Local Network (new route added)

Image - Gap in the BUZ network


Image - Route set in the wider Northside Road Grid

[HappyTrainGuy]

I'd cut RBWH-cultural centre. Webster road won't create a massive draw for a buz service especially when you have horrible stop locations. Take the PCH. The footpath to the hospital from the western side isn't DAA compliant and crossing 4 lanes of traffic near the roundabout isn't quite straight forward if you have any mobility issues. From what I'm aware of there have been several pedestrian vs motor vehicle incidents here. Don't get me wrong it will still draw patronage but you need to add more stops if you want patronage. You need to add more safe road crossings. You need to cut duplication such as the 335 and potentially the 325. But this also falls back to the poor network design such as network route design and infrastructure design. There needs to be a proper network review and routes need to be cut even if they are current buz routes like the 340.

Also you need to address the issues with the Webster road corridor and that's sustained patronage. Personally the corridor only needs a more frequent service. Not a buz. And don't use hospital workers as an excuse as pt all around the hospital is non existent which is why people drive there. I've mentioned this in other threads.

[#Metro]

I'd cut RBWH-cultural centre. Webster road won't create a massive draw for a buz service especially when you have horrible stop locations. Take the PCH. The footpath to the hospital from the western side isn't DAA compliant and crossing 4 lanes of traffic near the roundabout isn't quite straight forward if you have any mobility issues. From what I'm aware of there have been several pedestrian vs motor vehicle incidents here. Don't get me wrong it will still draw patronage but you need to add more stops if you want patronage. You need to add more safe road crossings. You need to cut duplication such as the 335 and potentially the 325. But this also falls back to the poor network design such as network route design and infrastructure design. There needs to be a proper network review and routes need to be cut even if they are current buz routes like the 340.

It would be a shame for bus improvements to be passed over for Brisbane's entire Northside because there were perceptions that it was "too hilly" or "too congested" and therefore not worth funding improved bus services there. (Impacts BUZ 359 Albany Creek concept, for example).

Agree 100% that pedestrian crossings should be added and safety improved. I think fixing that rather than rerouting is the better option there. In any case, the full network proposal would also have a separate East-West cross-town bus entering PCH from the front as well, which also serves Chermside. It would be less frequent though.

A BUZ service would be more than supported IMHO and that is testable. There is no need to guess with a trial. Bus service can always be reduced if the test or trial is not successful after 12 months. TransLink have run bus trials in the past, I believe the latest one was with boosted services to UQ.

Personally the corridor only needs a more frequent service. Not a buz. And don't use hospital workers as an excuse as pt all around the hospital is non existent which is why people drive there. I've mentioned this in other threads.

Perhaps ask the hospital workers which one would be more useful to them?

I find this an odd comment for someone who is also in favour of deviating the Northern busway to serve Prince Charles Hospital. We don't need to wait for that, this could be up and running within 12-18 months with funding. What's your position on Route 345 Aspley - does that "need" to be a BUZ also, or should it have services reduced to half-hourly during the day for a lack of need?

[HappyTrainGuy]

It would be a shame for bus improvements to be passed over for Brisbane's entire Northside because there were perceptions that it was "too hilly" or "too congested" and therefore not worth funding improved services there.

Not what I said. If you used the existing stops and spacing for the 325/335 then to some degree yes. There needs to be more infill stops along with more safe road crossings. We see this problem on Gympie Road north of chermside where people avoid PT because it means crossing 6 lanes of traffic with no lights or very long walks to use crossings. Frequent bus with adjustable hours is good. Having a buz for the sake of a buz is not good. Explain why Chermside-CC via Webster road needs another buz. Not bland generic things because it looks like the 345 or 333 line on a map or because patronage would be because of the hospitals. List more detailed or specific examples. What will sustain patronage late at night to warrant the Buz. What services can you connect to after the interchange. What will sustain patronage during the day. What are the trip generators. Because may of the routes you are comparing them to have this. Your proposed route lacks these same trip generators. And even routes that have these specific trip generators still struggle with patronage off peak such as the 330 and 340 buz. If you didn't know the bulk of the 340 buz patronage comes from Chermside-City. Not Chermside-Carseldine.

I find this an odd comment for someone who is also in favour of deviating the Northern busway to serve Prince Charles Hospital. We don't need to wait for that, this could be up and running within 12-18 months with funding. What's your position on Route 345 Aspley - does that "need" to be a BUZ also, or should it have services reduced to half-hourly during the day for a lack of need?

A busway to TPCH is different than a buz along webster road. The busway utilises existing corridor services with dedicated infrastructure that doesn't have any interference from traffic along with services that don't at present stop along that section of Gympie road (not including Kitchner road stops). That planned busway also had a reconfiguration of the Chermside interchange. You also have the potential to have a busway at the heart of the hospital precinct. Not on the fringes of a road that happens to go past.

The 345 has sustained patronage due to multiple trip factors along the route in both directions. City, roma street, Kelvin Grove, Newmarket shops and hotel, Alderley, Rode Road shops (Woolworths), multiple schools, the Aspley hypermarket and of course the multiple large apartment blocks along the corridor.

I know you are going for a gotchya but prove to everyone here we need the 348 buz. I'm just discussing and raising valid flaws in your proposal. You may not like it but these are things you have to take into consideration. Anyway the 340 would have been a better comparison. And yes the 340 should be cut off peak. I think it should be cut full stop.

Remember how I pushed you to name 30 minute or better routes north of Chermside interchange?? So go on. Give us valid reasons that it can sustain the holy grail of bus service standards.

[#Metro]

A busway to TPCH is different than a buz along webster road. The busway utilises existing corridor services with dedicated infrastructure that doesn't have any interference from traffic along with services that don't at present stop along that section of Gympie road (not including Kitchner road stops). That planned busway also had a reconfiguration of the Chermside interchange. You also have the potential to have a busway at the heart of the hospital precinct. Not on the fringes of a road that happens to go past.

The 345 has sustained patronage due to multiple trip factors along the route in both directions. City, roma street, Kelvin Grove, Newmarket shops and hotel, Alderley, Rode Road shops (Woolworths), multiple schools, the Aspley hypermarket and of course the multiple large apartment blocks along the corridor.

I know you are going for a gotchya but prove to everyone here we need the 348 buz. I'm just discussing and raising valid flaws in your proposal. You may not like it but these are things you have to take into consideration. Anyway the 340 would have been a better comparison. And yes the 340 should be cut off peak. I think it should be cut full stop.

Remember how I pushed you to name 30 minute or better routes north of Chermside interchange?? So go on. Give us valid reasons that it can sustain the holy grail of bus service standards.

Just ask students at QUT Busway and the hospital staff at PCH and RBWH which they would prefer? A frequent BUZ route or a 30 minute one. The proposal could also be posted to the RBOT Facebook page to see what feedback it receives. As I pointed out earlier, you can always reduce frequency later if that eventuates, but I don't think it will.

Trip factors - refer to the Route Description. I find it odd that you would propose cutting major trip generators such as Roma Street, QUT and RBWH from this route. What are the purposes or objectives for suggesting that? In what way would that be an improvement?

I would just note here that a 30 minute service won't build a frequent grid network of service. It's too infrequent to make transferring worthwhile. This is why other members such as Cazza also have similar routes as part of their Core Frequent Network proposals.

[HappyTrainGuy]

No no no no. You are being generic again. Of course everyone is going to say frequent.

Now stop beating around the bush. Why buz. Specifics. Ask a student is not specific.  Why a buz standard and not something that can be frequent during the day and rolling the hours back at night when the patronage drops. What patronage is going to support it. C'mon now. You love to propose foamy stuff. Sell the route with real life specifics. Why does Webster road need 8 buses at using it between 10-11pm.

[#Metro]

Well, hospitals are 24/7. People don't just get sick, and nurses don't just work between 9 am - 5 pm.

Just like how BUZ 120 goes past Queen Elizabeth II Hospital in Coopers Plains.

What's 24/7 on the BUZ 345 route?

And again, what would proposing cuts to major trip generators such as Roma Street, QUT and RBWH from this concept BUZ route achieve?

In terms of access, just needs some local pedestrian upgrades. Staff probably use those two bus stops indicated already.

It's not too late to consider supporting this idea HTG 

Image (resized) - PCH walk to front entrance 260 m, requires pedestrian crossing installation. Path already exists to existing bus stops. Note, alternative route buses would also serve the main reception turnaround.

[HappyTrainGuy]

For someone that's all about cost benefit ratios you are doing a p%ss poor job of selling this route.

Congratulations you know where TPCH is. Is that the main selling point. Yes hospitals are indeed 24/7. But. They don't run 24/7 for everybody. Some inpatient services generally do however outpatient services are generally 8am-6pm depending on the hospital and the type of outpatient service you are chasing. Some hospitals even split inpatient and outpatient services through the same facilities (depends on what service is being provided but for example inpatients are done 6am-9am before outpatients start at 9am). RBWH and TPCH do this. And even then when you are an inpatient most of the services are done during the day. Usually only emergency services are open 24/7 with inpatient care being the other service with 24/7 operations.

The hospital claim of yours for staff is simple BS. There are many routes that go past TPCH, RBWH, PA and Mater that all have service reductions or poor span of hours. Look at the first outbound 325/335 when it goes past TPCH. What about the 340. Or the inbound 325/335. What about the 336/337.

Cutting it at RBWH removes wasted running and eases congestion on a sector that struggles in off peak.

C'mon sell it. Is this purely a interhospital shuttle service with a layover at south brisbane? You love details, concepts and the like so you should be able to sell this. Why do we need another BUZ to Chermside that duplicates the 335 route and partially duplicates the 325? The 375 is not a buz and it has a frequency reduction 6pm. What other services does it connect to? What other people will use it and how will they access this route? What are the trip generators?

For the record I am not against frequency improvements. What I am against is selling that frequency improvement under a buz format.

C'MON. SELL THIS ROUTE! Why do we need this buz route?

[Gazza]

Just a point, wouldn't you BUZ the 325 in preference?

Back in the 2013 review that was one of the better ideas.

That all said, a lot of these hf routes only need to run 4bph till 7, not 11.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Just a point, wouldn't you BUZ the 325 in preference?

Back in the 2013 review that was one of the better ideas.

That all said, a lot of these hf routes only need to run 4bph till 7, not 11.

Indeed it was due to the Newmarket trip generator over the 335 RBWH link. For reference the 335 was cut to bits under the Translink review with sections now covered under new routes to local interchanges for hf direct city trips.

Further expanding on Webster road access. The stop to the north is used to access hospital services to the north of the grounds. The stop you intend to use has a very narrow footpath which is not daa compliant. The crossings on rode road are also very constrained. This is my issue I am raising. The hospital already has a wide pathway to Webster road. Webster road issue. Not hospital grounds issue.

I'm still waiting on Metro to sell this as a buz route....

So far it seems nurses that live on Webster road who do shift work at TPCH (and I assume RBWH too) are the main selling point.

[Gazza]

I don't think there needs to be a particular selling point.

The goal should be to have most of Brisbane within walking distance of a high frequency bus route, so filling in the gaps on the north side grid is a big part of that.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I don't think there needs to be a particular selling point.

The goal should be to have most of Brisbane within walking distance of a high frequency bus route, so filling in the gaps on the north side grid is a big part of that.

I disagree. There's high frequency when demand is needed and then there is high frequency when demand isn't needed. And we see the later all across the Northside where Gympie road has 3 buz routes while passing suburbs struggle to have any type of service after 6pm or on Sundays.

If it's to be a buz then there needs to be selling points and needs demand that can be sustained. If it can't sustain demand why does it have to be a buz. Why not have it as a high frequency route during the day and peaks when the demand is needed and then wind back the frequency when demand is lower in the mornings and evenings. Sure have the same span of hours but a few staff that work at a hospital is not a means for selling it as a buz route when the majority of the surrounding network doesn't even have a bus service. Metro said one point for a Webster road buz was due to TPCH being run 24/7. If that's a valid reason then why does the 334 that runs past TPCH not operate on Sundays.  By having a buz on Webster road all that does is limit your potential patronage by having people living along Webster road being able to access it. If your shift finishes at 6-7am how does this buz to Chermside help you when the first 335 north doesn't come by until 8.30am on a weekday and 9am on the weekend. Same with inbound if you get the graveyard shift. How does the last 335 arriving at Chermside at 8pm help those starting later in the night. You have similar problems with every other connecting route out of Chermside. 320/322 don't having any services leaving Chermside after 7.45pm during the week. 338 has its own problems. 369  to the south east has problems. Fitzgibbon is an area with massive housing development yet there is no regular bus services. Well. Not exactly true. There is the sole peak hour direction only rocket but I do not count that as a regular service. Which is another problem. 2 buz routes to get you to an area that has none.

As I have mentioned before Metro and others have struggled to list bus routes with a frequency of 59 minutes or better (not including the 4 buz routes) and the only services really mentioned consistently was the Hornibrook bus lines run 680. There's also another game that can be played. Are there more 2 hourly run routes than buz routes? And of course there's the what buses have services after 8pm.

The Northside doesn't need half assed proposals, another buz here or a route change there. The entire network needs an overhaul and there must be brutal cuts. Even to the flagship buz routes. If it's a HF core route then sure and that's the perfect example of why a buz route should exist. But if it's status quo then the 330/340 buz need frequency cuts especially to inbound services in the PM.

Just to be clear im not against high frequency or improved frequency. I'm against making every route a buz route just to claim a frequency boost for the sake of it. If you can't say why it needs to be 4bph after 9pm then it should not be a buz.

[Gazza]

I don't see why it couldn't sustain demand.

The 325 intersects with several rail stations has Chermside at the midpoint.

Most of the north side is pretty homogeneous in terms of density, so if the 345 and the 385 can sustain it in a similar pattern of development. So could this 325

And as I said before, the 325 going high frequency was part of the 2013 TransLink review and I doubt they would have proposed the idea if it wasn't going to work

One point I will make is that on rail back on track. I think people use the word buz As shorthand for a high frequency service.

I agree in general that most routes don't need to run at high frequency after 8.00 p.m. Or so

[HappyTrainGuy]

Rail is pointless mentioning for the 325 as Metro has proposed a new standalone buz route based on the 335 alignment from Chermside to RBWH/Cultural centre. Otherwise this would be the 325 buz 

Although he hasn't gone into detail about the route ie would the 325 still run Chermside-City bumping Webster road to 5-6bph or would the 335 be cut at Chermside but going by his comments over my suggestion of cutting it at the RBWH you can see where he was going. Which is my point. You need to show where the demand is coming from/going to. Demand is not on the 335 alignment. I've mention the reasons for it. And you know this too. Translink proposed many things. Some bad but for the majority absolutely f%cking great for the Northside. But this isn't the Translink network review. This is metro adding another buz proposal to the current existing network even if it means Translink runs it as a trial. Would a trial then mean the 335 would also still continue to run?

Currently the 325/335 data is slightly skewed due to their length with a good chunk of their patronage coming from their respective multiple long legs along the route ie City-RBWH, City-Kelvin Grove/Newmarket, Newmarket-Chermside, RBWH-Chermside, Chermside-Taigum via Aspley/Zillmere, Taigum-Sandgate/Boondall terminus. Pre covid Newmarket had a trip generator over 100,000 inbound. TPCH was lucky to get 16,000-17,000 in total. Sandgate road at Northumbria pulls in bigger numbers than the TPCH stop on Webster road. Hamilton road inbound alighting at TPCH pulls in bigger numbers than either Webster road stops in boardings or alightings.

Yes it's easy to cherry pick data but a 348 buz that terminates at Chermside running via the rbwh simply doesn't work in this current network. If you are using the current network for service improvements then it needs to be 325 related. That's where the trip generators are to sustain the patronage. As you mentioned the railway line at Newmarket plays a very large part in a Ferny Grove-Kelvin Grove/Newmarket link. It plays into the multiple segments along the route that sustains the patronage. There is no demand grange to rbwh. There's nothing there to warrant a service boost. There's no shops. Yes there's a hospital exactly the same as TPCH but why isn't this getting mentioned at the major draw card. The 345 is similar to the 325/335 in that it's a long route with multiple legs with lots of trip generators along the route. The stop at Alderley outbound for the 345 had more boardings than either of the Webster road TPCH stops when you combined their alightings and boardings. These are the trip generators missing on the Webster road corridor. You have Chermside, TPCH, the school on Kitchener road, Stafford road and the RBWH. That's the only draw card. Head to Newmarket boom you have Newmarket railway station, Newmarket shops, Aldi on bishop street, Kelvin Grove and then you hit the busway at Normanby. That's also when you can start playing around with terminus locations at night. If the demand is there run hf to Chermside with every second service continuing on to Boondall. But revise the network to more of an interchange setup then that would warrant a continued hf setup. But as I said that all depends on the network. 

[#Metro]

Currently the 325/335 data is slightly skewed due to their length with a good chunk of their patronage coming from their respective multiple long legs along the route ie City-RBWH, City-Kelvin Grove/Newmarket, Newmarket-Chermside, RBWH-Chermside, Chermside-Taigum via Aspley/Zillmere, Taigum-Sandgate/Boondall terminus. Pre covid Newmarket had a trip generator over 100,000 inbound. TPCH was lucky to get 16,000-17,000 in total. Sandgate road at Northumbria pulls in bigger numbers than the TPCH stop on Webster road. Hamilton road inbound alighting at TPCH pulls in bigger numbers than either Webster road stops in boardings or alightings.

Yes it's easy to cherry pick data but a 348 buz that terminates at Chermside running via the rbwh simply doesn't work in this current network. If you are using the current network for service improvements then it needs to be 325 related. That's where the trip generators are to sustain the patronage. As you mentioned the railway line at Newmarket plays a very large part in a Ferny Grove-Kelvin Grove/Newmarket link. It plays into the multiple segments along the route that sustains the patronage. There is no demand grange to rbwh. There's nothing there to warrant a service boost. There's no shops. Yes there's a hospital exactly the same as TPCH but why isn't this getting mentioned at the major draw card. The 345 is similar to the 325/335 in that it's a long route with multiple legs with lots of trip generators along the route. The stop at Alderley outbound for the 345 had more boardings than either of the Webster road TPCH stops when you combined their alightings and boardings. These are the trip generators missing on the Webster road corridor. You have Chermside, TPCH, the school on Kitchener road, Stafford road and the RBWH. That's the only draw card. Head to Newmarket boom you have Newmarket railway station, Newmarket shops, Aldi on bishop street, Kelvin Grove and then you hit the busway at Normanby. That's also when you can start playing around with terminus locations at night. If the demand is there run hf to Chermside with every second service continuing on to Boondall. But revise the network to more of an interchange setup then that would warrant a continued hf setup. But as I said that all depends on the network.

Well, if this were true, Route 375 which terminates at Stafford Shopping Centre, is much shorter and has even fewer trip generators on it, and is also an ex-tram route just north of Grange, should have nobody catching it, and certainly not have patronage to support services every 15 minutes in the off-peak.

Patronage on the Route 375 should have died long ago, along with the tram that ran that route. We would only expect a remnant hourly bus to exist there. Factors acting to kill ex-tram route patronage should have acted equally to kill patronage on routes through Gordon Park as routes through Grange. You would not expect to observe a differential or selective effect.

Route 375 today does very well, runs every 15 min, and probably should be BUZ upgraded too.

HTG, the data you rely on is very problematic as it is the product of a setup where services are very poor. A more rigorous test would be to run the trial, which would generate new, reliable data under test conditions where buses run every 15-minutes or better, and that would conclusively prove or disprove the concept.

Travel surveys of households in the Grange area and along the corridor, as well as public consultation with RBWH and PCH staff, and QUT students would quickly determine who lives and travels to where by car. I write by car, because that's your target market. It would be an error to only survey existing PT users (1). E.g Directly test the idea that no staff or patients or students live in Grange or along the Webster road corridor.

Given the sheer volume of people who work or study at just these three locations, I would be very surprised if the result came back null. The bus should be free on the first Monday of its trial or introduction, as it was with the CityGlider introduction. That is how you get your initial pax and growth from there.

Reference
(1) Survivorship Bias
https://worldwarwings.com/the-statistics-that-kept-countless-allied-fighter-planes-in-the-sky/

[#Metro]

BUZ Route Network Gap Filling

The BUZ idea when first introduced would have been very controversial, as it also included running buses every 15 minutes on a Sunday. It would have looked like a very big ask to do that. After all, Sunday patronage was dead, and with penalty rates, wildly expensive too.

So one of the features of the BUZ network is that it only upgraded routes that were already high patronage and didn't reroute those routes (probably to minimise criticism). This meant that the approach was "Safe". However, employing this approach means you actively ignore latent and induced demand - areas which would otherwise support high patronage but currently don't because people cannot and do not want to catch a service that barely exists or doesn't exist at all.

I have little doubt there are many untapped 'Gold Mines' of patronage waiting to be unlocked across the city. These being Bulimba, Yeronga, Centenary etc. Upgrading an existing high patronage route will give you patronage growth on what is already high patronage, but not as much as upgrading a low patronage route that has high growth potential.

More generally, the future of patronage growth needs to come from rebooting and expanding the BUZ network. Brisbane Metro will not run off the busway (at least not yet), and we know that the majority of busway users enter the busway from plain street stops, not from busway stations.

We know what the winning formula is. We just need to keep doing what we know works.

BUZ Routes, Frequency + Reliability - The winning formula 
https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/6058

"Sunday patronage now higher than previous weekday patronage on most routes."

[HappyTrainGuy]

Metro. Just sell the buz route. Nothing in your two posts mentioned why. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to simply list reasons for it. You love bcr's so why can't you list aby reasons that we need this buz on this alignment. You can't even say what would happen to the 335. Stop beating around the bush. Stop comparing it to other routes with different trip generators. Why are people in the grange going to use this buz. Why are people on Webster road going to use this buz. I don't want a history novel about the buz. Where are all these people going to be going. To the shops? To the city? I want to know its main reasons for it being a buz. What are the main points for it being a buz. Why the 335 alignment over the 325. Why are people on Kedron Brook road going to use it. Just give us something other than bland generic responses like ask students or survey people. I want to know your reasonings. Why do you think the 325 route is preferred over the 335 route that your buz will run. Why not have a 325 buz or hf upgrade instead?

It's your concept route so surely you have some idea about it otherwise you're just pulling routes out of thin air. It might appear I'm being aggressive but despite your signature saying you are not a tmr you are doing more question dodging that a lot of pollies. Just get on with it. List some selling points. No one is going to give you a pat on the back if you can't even back up why your own route needs to exist in the first place. STB and myself are calling you out because quite frankly I agree with his you draw a few lines on a map and call yourself a network planner comment.

[#Metro]

Metro. Just sell the buz route. Nothing in your two posts mentioned why. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to simply list reasons for it. You love bcr's so why can't you list aby reasons that we need this buz on this alignment. You can't even say what would happen to the 335. Stop beating around the bush. Stop comparing it to other routes with different trip generators. Why are people in the grange going to use this buz. Why are people on Webster road going to use this buz. I don't want a history novel about the buz. Where are all these people going to be going. To the shops? To the city? I want to know its main reasons for it being a buz. What are the main points for it being a buz. Why the 335 alignment over the 325. Why are people on Kedron Brook road going to use it. Just give us something other than bland generic responses like ask students or survey people. I want to know your reasonings. Why do you think the 325 route is preferred over the 335 route that your buz will run. Why not have a 325 buz or hf upgrade instead?

It's your concept route so surely you have some idea about it otherwise you're just pulling routes out of thin air. It might appear I'm being aggressive but despite your signature saying you are not a tmr you are doing more question dodging that a lot of pollies. Just get on with it. List some selling points. No one is going to give you a pat on the back if you can't even back up why your own route needs to exist in the first place.

Sure, just read this helpful thread ---> https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14949.0

It's not too late to consider supporting this idea HTG 

[HappyTrainGuy]

A helpful thread that shows you can't answer a simple question about your own planned route.

While you are at it why not link to stb's comment calling you out for doing little to no research of the area you are talking about?

[#Metro]

I did do the research - present and historical, and have been to the area. I know the area well.

I would have thought having Chermside Shopping Centre, two major hospitals, Stafford City shopping centre, direct connection to the CBD, CRR Roma Street and QUT would be self-explanatory regarding patronage generation. So, I don't think there needs to be any particular selling point.

It certainly would draw more passengers than the non-serious non-proposal you advance of a 30 minute route with QUT, Roma Street and the CBD cut off at RBWH.

Other members have similar routes on their maps too.

Time to stop making false claims.

[Paul B]

Buz 325 (gives Newman road at Wavell some much needed frequency)

Terminate 335 at Chermside (to save duplication)
extend 335 to brighton (run half hourly offpeak)

[HappyTrainGuy]

Finally something that's not a smart ass reply or question dodging.

Never said 30 minute services. I have said multiple times I'm not against hf. Just buz'n the network for the sake of it.

It's funny. You dismiss multiple former residents concerns as false claims or just playing delay tactics.

You know the area well and yet you want to copy the 335 route still? You know the area well but still fail to address the actual services issues that the Grange has such as accessing Lutyche shops, Alderley shops and newmarket shops? The big trip generators in the direct area. You know the area yet you said to STB just ride your bike to Newmarket?Newmarket is a big draw card and is easier to get to than Stafford because of the sh%t show on Stafford road and Webster road. Not to mention Stafford is a bit of a hole. Kedron Brook road shops... what's there a cafe63/the coffee club or something went tits up a while back, a few restaurants and cafes, the bike shop is now a realestate agent and the bakery shut down years ago and was vacant for ages before some plant store moved in. You aren't going to have Chermside residents catching the 348 to the city so you can rule out that being a big patronage draw card. You use the claim of workers and people going to the hospital. While valid you are heavily relying on people on the Webster road corridor to use the service. Out of all the stops on Days road/Webster road intersection the 325 stop on the side street is the most popular. Stafford city is actually a pain to access. From a guess it's a 700m walk from the inbound stops to an actual front door into Stafford city. Mobility was not the first design point. The stops are quite far away from the actual intersection so you instantly have a long walk. But you know the area well so a 700m walk carrying groceries is really an attractive option for locals using your 348 buz. Locals that drive use the back entrance to Stafford City from as far back as Kedron Brook flood plain.

But you know the area well.  And you have done your historical research. Please. You visit the area once, look up a few timetables and draw some lines on a map and suddenly you're an expert of the area. Give me a break. HF the 325 where there is proven demand. Doesn't need a buz. 15 mins during the day and then rollback the frequency at night and cut that 335 back to Chermside.

[#Metro]

Finally something that's not a smart ass reply or question dodging.

Never said 30 minute services. I have said multiple times I'm not against hf. Just buz'n the network for the sake of it.

It's funny. You dismiss multiple former residents concerns as false claims or just playing delay tactics.

You know the area well and yet you want to copy the 335 route still? You know the area well but still fail to address the actual services issues that the Grange has such as accessing Lutyche shops, Alderley shops and newmarket shops? The big trip generators in the direct area. You know the area yet you said to STB just ride your bike to Newmarket?Newmarket is a big draw card and is easier to get to than Stafford because of the sh%t show on Stafford road and Webster road. Not to mention Stafford is a bit of a hole. Kedron Brook road shops... what's there a cafe63/the coffee club or something went tits up a while back, a few restaurants and cafes, the bike shop is now a realestate agent and the bakery shut down years ago and was vacant for ages before some plant store moved in. You aren't going to have Chermside residents catching the 348 to the city so you can rule out that being a big patronage draw card. You use the claim of workers and people going to the hospital. While valid you are heavily relying on people on the Webster road corridor to use the service. Out of all the stops on Days road/Webster road intersection the 325 stop on the side street is the most popular. Stafford city is actually a pain to access. From a guess it's a 700m walk from the inbound stops to an actual front door into Stafford city. Mobility was not the first design point. The stops are quite far away from the actual intersection so you instantly have a long walk. But you know the area well so a 700m walk carrying groceries is really an attractive option for locals using your 348 buz. Locals that drive use the back entrance to Stafford City from as far back as Kedron Brook flood plain.

But you know the area well.  And you have done your historical research. Please. You visit the area once, look up a few timetables and draw some lines on a map and suddenly you're an expert of the area. Give me a break. HF the 325 where there is proven demand. Doesn't need a buz. 15 mins during the day and then rollback the frequency at night and cut that 335 back to Chermside.

Hey HTG, there's no need to post misrepresentations of other members posts on the forum just to get your point across that you don't want or like BUZ route there. It is difficult to see your case credibly when your position is to deviate a busway to PCH which would essentially deliver a BUZ and Brisbane Metro into PCH (with a wider span of hours, including 24 hour bus service on Fri and Sat nights I might add too). It is also very difficult to understand the logic of truncating the service at RBWH. Even current TfB proposals for Metro 1 & 2 don't terminate frequent routes at busway stops.

Yourself, or indeed any member has the opportunity to add or present multiple alternative or additional routings and make a case for that. It's not too late to present those ideas, HTG.

And perhaps you should consider presenting a comprehensive frequent network map as other RBOT members have such as Jonno, Cazza and myself have. It would be a far better use of your time and help your cause more than a dense litany of complaints about Northside bus services each time the subject of Northside bus routes are broached.

Come with solutions, not problems.

BCC's bus network review closes in 2 weeks, so there is your window of opportunity to contribute positively.

Draw something, so we can see what your vision is.  

[HappyTrainGuy]

That's rich coming from someone that ignores what locals know about particular areas. I don't need to do my own network. Translinks network for the Northside was bang on what we need. So I refer you to view that design. The one that took an axe to the majority of bus routes including the 340buz.

[#Metro]

That's rich coming from someone that ignores what locals know about particular areas. I don't need to do my own network. Translinks network for the Northside was bang on what we need. So I refer you to view that design. The one that took an axe to the majority of bus routes including the 340buz.

Thank you for your comments HTG, I have tried to be constructive with you. The public overwhelmingly rejected the TransLink 2013 proposals.

Unfortunately, I have no further interest discussing the proposal with you, feel free to direct your posts to other members. 

Otherwise, I am very happy to have the proposal out in public and pleased to see other members have their own proposals for a frequent bus/BUZ up that corridor out there too.

PEACE.

[Paul B]

The public rejected the 2013 review because of a scare campaign, not because it wasn't any good

[HappyTrainGuy]

Probably put as much research into that comment as he did with his Webster road research. Wonder if he might have visited a tree at Tennyson that had a knitted jumper on it too.

The Northside network review actually had quite favourable reviews. Some black spots here and there due to the road layout/topography limiting how services were routes but nothing that couldn't be fixed. It had more high frequency routes. More fundamental network redundancy (rail network went down then the bus network was a backup and viceversa should there be bus issues the rail network will get you north before interchanging onto a east-west/loop service. More east-west routes. More interchange to HF corridors. More interchanges. 

[#Metro]

The public rejected the 2013 review because of a scare campaign, not because it wasn't any good

PaulB, here is what TransLink proposed then for the corridor. It's something similar to Jonno's proposal. TransLink proposed to remove the via Newmarket routing of the 325. Given the traffic situation, its probably a good idea to end the route at Chermside and let other services cover north of Chermside shopping centre. This would prevent congestion impacts propagating across the network.



 

If we examine an extract from the Frequent Network in the TransLink report, TL proposed having services on Webster Road run to 15 minute standard until 9 pm at least. But compare that to the wider span of hours proposed for Aspley Hypermarket (10 pm) and Bracken Ridge (11 pm). It doesn't make a lot of sense - clearly a hospital (two actually) being large employers with 24/7 operations would have a stronger case for extended frequency than either Aspley Hypermarket or Bracken Ridge Woolworths.



Source: TransLink: SEQ bus network review

TransLink Bus Review (2013) (TROVE ARCHIVE)

Current TransLink Timetable
https://translink.com.au/sites/default/files/acquiadam-assets/timetables/220321-325%2C335.pdf

[HappyTrainGuy]

S212. Look at that bad boy in action.

And you do not get it. It's what's along the route that can sustain patronage. Hospitals are good day time for outpatient visits and the evenings for visiting. Outside of that they do not attract patronage. Some staff can use it but the vast majority can't simply due to shift work times. I have raised these points earlier in this thread. So maybe do some more research. If you need to get to emergency call an ambulance or a taxi. You don't need a bus to get you there. In Queensland we have free ambulance cover. Ambos also have transfer services and schemes.

[Andrew]

I am not sure a BUZ would be the answer. I think splitting the 335 as mentioned in this thread would be a good idea. I don't think the Inner Northern Busway needs another service into town. I would support keeping a similar alignment to the current 335 (although outbound I would have travel via the 310 route, omitting part of Brunswick St). I think the important part to focus on frequency wise is what the Translink review said about 7am-7pm being peak travel times. If you have a 15 min frequency during those times (alternating between 325 & 335), it should be an improvement. A new 335 could also stay on Hamilton Rd and terminate round the back on Kittyhawk Drive as well.

I am fence sitting about going via Stafford City. I am not sure the benefit would outweigh the longer travel time. There would also be a need to have a second, southbound facing bus stop or a full redesign of the current stop.

[#Metro]

I am not sure a BUZ would be the answer. I think splitting the 335 as mentioned in this thread would be a good idea. I don't think the Inner Northern Busway needs another service into town. I would support keeping a similar alignment to the current 335 (although outbound I would have travel via the 310 route, omitting part of Brunswick St). I think the important part to focus on frequency wise is what the Translink review said about 7am-7pm being peak travel times. If you have a 15 min frequency during those times (alternating between 325 & 335), it should be an improvement. A new 335 could also stay on Hamilton Rd and terminate round the back on Kittyhawk Drive as well.

I am fence sitting about going via Stafford City. I am not sure the benefit would outweigh the longer travel time. There would also be a need to have a second, southbound facing bus stop or a full redesign of the current stop.

Thanks for these suggestions Andrew.

I have thought about the frequency a bit more, and it really is up to BCC and TransLink to decide if they want to modify the BUZ standard or not. The 2013 bus review did propose to water down the standard to a core window of 7 am to 7 pm 7 days per week, and then tailor service frequencies outside that window. Obviously cuts to the BUZ standard was a huge trigger/panic point for the public.

You will see in the map the 375 which is not a BUZ and the 345 which is a BUZ are both drawn a the same thick red line. So I see what the frequency should be after 7pm is really something to do with the BUZ standard generally, not really to do with whether the route path shown would support BUZ levels of patronage. It would be a separate debate (and thread) to be had as its effects are not just limited to this proposed route but all BUZ routes in the network.

That said, there might be a case to terminate the BUZ 345 at Chermside Shopping Centre as well, and have a different (frequent) route cover and incorporate the remainder section on Maundrell Tce.

[HappyTrainGuy]

345 to Chermside???      Do some more research.  You clearly have no idea about Brisbanes Northside.