Gabba to CBD routing

[Golliwog]

As I was waiting for a train in the city after coming through the Gabba yesterday, I was just thinking about the routing of services from the southside. If they've got route 66, the purpose of which as I understand it is to be a distributor service along the inner section of the busway between the Gabba and RBH, I really think more of the routes that enter the busway at the Gabba shouldn't stay on it through Mater Hill and South Bank. I would support running most if not all of them via the CC bridge, which would help justify putting buslanes on the CC bridge.

I have noticed of late that they have had a bit of a changed attitude to how to set up routes. Route 29 which itself has a very small catchment area but is for interchange from the Gabba and Park Rd to UQ and PAH. Route 369 is also a good example of their changing route planning idea from 'suburbs to city' to one that encourages interchange.

Thoughts? Opinions?

[achiruel]

As I was waiting for a train in the city after coming through the Gabba yesterday, I was just thinking about the routing of services from the southside. If they've got route 66, the purpose of which as I understand it is to be a distributer service along the inner section of the busway between the Gabba and RBH, I really think more of the routes that enter the busway at the Gabba shouldn't stay on it through Mater Hill and South Bank. I would support running most if not all of them via the CC bridge, which would help justify putting buslanes on the CC bridge.

I have noticed of late that they have had a bit of a changed attitude to how to set up routes. Route 29 which itself has a very small catchment area but is for interchange from the Gabba and Park Rd to UQ and PAH. Route 369 is also a good example of their changing route planning idea from 'suburbs to city' to one that encourages interchange.

Thoughts? Opinions?

I would support terminating a lot of them at 'Gabba such as 113, 117, 124, 125, 172, 174, 175, 184, 185, 203, 204, 210, 212.

[Golliwog]

Just to preface my comments: I must admit I'm not that familiar with a lot of the different routes going through there.

I'm pretty sure that the Gabba is probably going to be seen as too close to the CBD to terminate a route full of CBD bound passengers, it may become necessary if the cultural center gets worse though. I remember this came up in a thread a while ago discussing the merit of halving route 411 to run between UQ and Toowong via Hawken Drive and using the saved route km to run it at a higher frequency. STB may be able to add some more details?

I'd mainly be focusing on the high frequency routes like the 100 and 200.

[somebody]

I don't support the proposal. (Big surprise, I know.)

66 has a few purposes:
- Connecting QUT KG & Roma St
- Connecting Roma St and W'Gabba
- Later expanded to connect RCH & RBH
- Generate votes for councillors/mayor
- Generate votes for state members

Delete whichever is inappropriate (I think only the last one)

Basically, the whole arrangement of the 66/393 is completely brain damaged if you ask me.  Only the second purpose justifies extending south of Roma St.  Removing this from the Cultural Centre is what should be done first, before other routes should be damaged "For the greater good".

[Golliwog]

I can see where you're coming from, but the 66 also connects the SE Busway to the INB. I see it as having a distributor role as well. Granted those from the south heading to Normanby-RBH can catch a 333/330/340/345(Normanby only) from the CC to get there, but it's the same logic as why they introduced the 29. Those services don't provide enough capacity on their current frequency, but theres not enough demand to warrant increasing the frequency counter-peak all the way to Chermside/elsewhere.

I'd be interested to see where the people on these Gabba routes currently get off in inner Brisbane, but I'd expect that the vast majority would be getting off in the CBD. There could be a decent number getting off at the CC if they're interchanging to a service that goes further north, but these interchanges can also be done in the CBD. I think our PT network has come past the stage where the CC is the interchange Mecca of Brisbane.

Looking at the P88 timetable vs the 111, I would have thought there was more time to be saved going via the CCB rather than through South Bank, though these suggest it's 8 minutes on the P88 and 9 minutes on the 111 (Buranda to KGS). Targeted bus priority measures on the CCB could speed this up though.

[somebody]

Looking at the P88 timetable vs the 111, I would have thought there was more time to be saved going via the CCB rather than through South Bank, though these suggest it's 8 minutes on the P88 and 9 minutes on the 111 (Buranda to KGS). Targeted bus priority measures on the CCB could speed this up though.

Queens Wharf Rd is the problem.  Use it and you will see.

As for your other comments, I can accept them only in relation to Mater Hill.  At South Bank the 66 competes with people using trains to reach Roma St which would be altogether more efficient.  That's also true at South Brisbane/Cultural Centre but to a far lesser degree.  But there is the 333/330 there anyway.

[SurfRail]

The obvious logic of the 66 is to provide extra capacity for people who need to travel to 8MP or Chermside so inner city travellers can get about without clogging up 111s, 333s etc.  It is a distributor route, which is why I would resist calls to extend it or combine it with anything else.  Trains will not get you to the Gabba, Mater Hill, the city centre, QUT or thr RCH/RBWH, so there needs to be a busway route with this function.

I would not go fiddling with it.  There are plenty of other things to get stuck into, not the least of which is the 88.

[somebody]

The obvious logic of the 66 is to provide extra capacity for people who need to travel to 8MP or Chermside so inner city travellers can get about without clogging up 111s, 333s etc.  It is a distributor route, which is why I would resist calls to extend it or combine it with anything else.  Trains will not get you to the Gabba, Mater Hill, the city centre, QUT or thr RCH/RBWH, so there needs to be a busway route with this function.

I would not go fiddling with it.  There are plenty of other things to get stuck into, not the least of which is the 88.

These people should be using the 393, 330, 333, 340, full time 376 (except Charlotte/Margaret).  When in the PM peak someone gets off a 333 at QUT KG they create a space for someone to get on to the bus.  The only real problem is that it doesn't balance out.

393 on a higher frequency running through to Roma St at least would see people interchanging on to it at Bowen Hills in the morning, giving the 393 loads in both directions something the 66 can only dream about in the morning run from RBH to Roma St. (A few interchanging off 331/332/341+via Valley routes.)  Doing it in this way would provide far more connectivity than the 66 does and provide it cheaper.

66 is the obvious first candidate for removal from Cultural Centre congestion.

I quite strongly disagree with you on this one.  I guess we have to agree to disagree.

[Golliwog]

SurfRail: I don't propose changes to route 66, rather to other routes to encourage people to interchange onto the 66 and give those routes a faster run into the CBD.

Simon: The issue with Queens Wharf Rd is the intersection to go back into the busway isn't it? Could be fixed by changing the traffic light sequencing there, though you'd have to look how that impacted the other legs of the intersection. I wouldn't want to disadvantage the busway.

Though that said, not all the routes go to KGS/QSBS. You could easily get to Elizabeth St or Turbot St as well.

Just as equally though, services for the Valley could be routed via the Story Bridge, though not sure if that would give much of a time saving. Such a service would probably be better done with the idea in another thread of a RBH-Valley-PAH connector route via the Story Bridge.

[somebody]

I think Queens Wharf Rd is just narrow the whole way and buses seem to need to drive slowly on it.  Been a little while since I've endured it though.

With Elizabeth St, while you can access that easily enough you cannot get back on to the busway without an arguably dangerous double(?) lane change from William to turn left at George or a long circuit of the CBD, probably via Creek St.

Turbot St means missing CBD stops except for 130 @ Turbot/Roma St which is a fringe CBD stop.

[Gazza]

These people should be using the 393, 330, 333, 340, full time 376 (except Charlotte/Margaret).  When in the PM peak someone gets off a 333 at QUT KG they create a space for someone to get on to the bus.  .

But many of those routes are getting full by KGS/RS to the point where people get left behind, and its inefficient having short hop inner city travellers trying to squeeze on and off around a fully loaded bus that is intending to go 10-15km from the CBD. Just slows things down for those people actually.

The only real problem is that it doesn't balance out

That's a pretty real problem though!
Obviously a great deal of demand is concentrated from the Gabba to RBWH, much more than what you could accommodate on spare seats on the 330, 333, 340 etc.

[Golliwog]

It is a double lane change across to George St. If you're going to take the Elizabeth St exit, you wouldn't be running the route through the busway still. Not all of them do that anyway.

[somebody]

The only real problem is that it doesn't balance out

That's a pretty real problem though!
Obviously a great deal of demand is concentrated from the Gabba to RBWH, much more than what you could accommodate on spare seats on the 330, 333, 340 etc.

Yes it is, but I disagree that inventing a route like the 66 is a worthy solution to this problem.

Here's one possible solution, although there are many others:
- Don't BUZ the 340, and continue having it not run in the peak direction
- Remove the 331 and 332
- Double frequency on the 330 & 333 peak time
- Remove some 66 trips and use its stop for either the 330 or 333
- And for crying out loud, run the 393 to Roma St at least!

[Gazza]

Double frequency on the 330 & 333 peak time

66 = 8.1km per run.

330 = 26km
333 = 12.7km

I don't see how your plan saves resources in any meaningful way. It would probably cost more.

At South Bank the 66 competes with people using trains to reach Roma St which would be altogether more efficient.

Funny that you complain about the 66 doing this over a short distance, yet have no problem with the 330 competing with trains over a long distance.

[somebody]

I don't see how your plan saves resources in any meaningful way. It would probably cost more.

Did you read this bit?

- Remove the 331 and 332

It's only converting rockets into normal services.

Funny that you complain about the 66 doing this over a short distance, yet have no problem with the 330 competing with trains over a long distance.

I suspect it's a pretty un-used use of the 66 you are referring to there.

Take the 66 out and you reduce the congestion at the Cultural Centre, and it sees a low utilisation here, so why not?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Why not combine the 111+333 to reduce congestion even more. Along with making more routes terminate at interchanges/busway stations/railway stations.

[somebody]

Why not combine the 111+333 to reduce congestion even more. Along with making more routes terminate at interchanges/busway stations/railway stations.

Is that intentional flamebait?

[Gazza]

It's only converting rockets into normal services.

I thought you loved those single seat parliament services though. What gives?

[somebody]

It's only converting rockets into normal services.

I thought you loved those single seat parliament services though. What gives?

341 will still provide this connection.  Probably sufficient for the demand I have seen in the past.  Although I am open to correction.

I don't think everywhere in Brisbane should have a City Precincts service, but some of the busiest corridors (Mains Rd, Gympie Rd, O-C Rd) can certainly stand to have it.  Others can have a reasonable interchange option.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Why not combine the 111+333 to reduce congestion even more. Along with making more routes terminate at interchanges/busway stations/railway stations.

Is that intentional flamebait?

Nope. Its acheivable. If its such an issue about services being delayed make it prepaid, install bus lanes/priority areas, ramp up the frequency to every 5-10 minutes, start culling more routes at interchanges so people feed onto these services or culling at railway stations so they feed onto heavy rail.

We shouldn't even be talking about the 341 other than getting that service cut from the network.

[somebody]

There are plenty of other things to get stuck into, not the least of which is the 88.

Removing the 88 from Coronation Drive/Moggill Rd would require that either the 444 moved to QSBS, the 4xx expresses move to KGSBS (which doubt has the room to accommodate them, particularly if there rockets are included), or for those routes to be given street stops.

None of these options are supported so the 88 will continue to waste resources.  That's if you believe we should only do what is supported, I guess.