CityFerry Services (monohulls)

[#Metro]

OK, time to ask a difficult question:

What are your thoughts on the monohull CityFerry system?

[Golliwog]

What about another option of keep them in the TL network but change their use? I don't see the problem with the monohull boats themselves, they work just fine. Perhaps just change how they're used within the network.

[#Metro]

I don't think I want to pay high fares and even higher subsidy money to run something that carries 1 passenger per service when there are so many other uses where there could be higher patronage. I'd like to think people can see past "loss aversion" and "oh isn't that quaint" and start thinking about useful public transport.

How would the use change?

In economics and decision theory, loss aversion refers to people's tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains. Some studies suggest that losses are twice as powerful, psychologically, as gains. Loss aversion was first convincingly demonstrated by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

Personally I think monohulls should go. If they are there for "tourist purposes" then they should become a dedicated tourist service and be removed from the TL Network. They are extremely slow and capacity is low and SPEED matters for commuting, that probably explains why there are such few pax on services despite generally good frequency. Except for short runs across the river like at New Farm ferry terminal where there are no bridges etc.

I'd rather a new citycat line and upgraded terminals (maybe remove river plaza) and faster service that way. Adding more citycat stops is going to slow down the citycat service even more as it keeps stopping everywhere. Two CityCat lines running together may allow both to be faster.

[Golliwog]

So why can't we change how they're used within the network? Is there some law that says they must be used as they are currently?

[somebody]

I think the cross river ferries are fine.  I don't get the North Quay-Sydney St run, or whatever it is, not 100% sure.

[#Metro]

So why can't we change how they're used within the network? Is there some law that says they must be used as they are currently?

how would you change it?

[Golliwog]

Use them more as cross river ferries (or feeders) than haul routes. If we're advocating for the Cats to be given seperate routes, then I would also be inclined to look at changing the inner city stopping pattern. For example having the Cats stop at Riverside, Southbank 1/2 then QUT take a lot of time. If you scratch 1 or 2 of those out of each route, then set up the monohulls to feed between the 3 (provided they are timed correctly of course) it could operate well. The speed of the main route would be increased with little impact on those wanting a different stop. I'm sure similar things could be come up with along the system, this is just the first idea that came to mind.

If the monohull is timed to pull in right after the Cat (or be at an adjacent pontoon if available) then theres almost no change in their overall trip time, and the oportunity for time savings due to skipping stops. People will get over the dislike of transfers. Hell, my waits at UQ have dropped now that I've started catching a 139/169 to Buranda if I miss a 109, or similarly a 209 to Wollongabba.

[SurfRail]

Monohulls should be kept for "waterbridge" work. 

CityCats shouldn't be performing this function as stop-start operation wrecks their engines and cancels out their speed advantage.  Even the current service is too slow.

That is why I would favour the following tiering pattern to at least make it more useful from the outer reaches, and to provide better connectivity with services like Cityglider.

CityCat 1
Hamilton Northshore
Bretts Wharf
Bulimba
Teneriffe
---
Riverside
QUT
---
Regatta
West End
Guyatt Park
UQ Lakes

CityCat 2
Teneriffe
Hawthorne
New Farm Park
Mowbray Park
Sydney Street
---
Riverside
South Bank
---
Park Road
Davies Park
Regatta

You then end up with 10 stops per pattern, instead of trying to make all of these fit into the current version. 

Any terminals missed above are served by a connecting monohull as per below.   South Bank 3 and River Plaza would be closed – the busway and the Victoria and Goodwill Bridges largely supplant them, and the resources can be used to support more frequent cross river ferries where there is no decent alternative or where CityCats are currently performing that function.

Cross River 1

North Quay
South Bank (connect to CityCat 2)
QUT (connect to CityCat 1)
Thornton Street
Eagle Street (walk to Riverside for CityCat 1 & 2)
Holman Street
Dockside
Sydney Street (connects to Citycat 2)
Mowbray Park

Cross River 2
New Farm Park (connects to Citycat 2)
Norman Park

Cross River 3
Apollo Road
Bretts Wharf (connects to CityCat 1)

There are currently 9 monohulls, so with a few extras and tighter running times a decent level of service could be maintained.  The Cross River 1 service is a more useful version of the existing Inner City service, which provides a cross-river function to more useful terminals in the South Bank area and covers what the CityCat does in the South Bank reach and out to Mowbray Park.

As something revolutionary, maybe we should take a leaf out of Sydney's (outer metropolitan vehicle ferries) book and look at providing these cross-river services for free.

[Golliwog]

Pretty much what I was saying. Though I didn't have any particular route planned out. I would vote for not arbitrarily picking which stops should be on which run, but use go card trip data to see if theres any trend to which passengers are coming and going from similar locations. It may be that you won't be able to split it entirely like that, but such is life.

As for free trips on the monohulls, not sure if thats really worth it. If they're already catching a bus or CityCat then it would just be a continuation which would be free anyway.

[#Metro]

Cross River 1

North Quay
South Bank (connect to CityCat 2)
QUT (connect to CityCat 1)
Thornton Street
Eagle Street (walk to Riverside for CityCat 1 & 2)
Holman Street
Dockside
Sydney Street (connects to Citycat 2)
Mowbray Park

I like your idea SurfRail, this is good. However I think the above pattern is better suited to a CityCat given the sheer distance. These monohulls are woefully slow and therefore should only operate short trips IMHO. Everything else seems good though.

[SurfRail]

I like your idea SurfRail, this is good. However I think the above pattern is better suited to a CityCat given the sheer distance. These monohulls are woefully slow and therefore should only operate short trips IMHO. Everything else seems good though.

My concern with that is that apparently the big diesels on the CityCats don't like closely spaced stops (a bit like using an ICE on the Ferny Grove line).  In any event, apart from the stretches between Dockside and Holman St and between QUT and Thornton St, you've got very short distances involved on most of the legs.

They did trial a "KittyKat" previously (I have seen but do not have pictures of it). I don't remember where it was used or what for, but apparently it was not too successful.

If there wasn't a terminal at Dockside I'd suggest cutting off the down-river part to go by itself.  Dockside is not as important as Sydney Street for patronage and future growth and so shouldn't really have a CityCat terminal linking it straight to the city (adding it in addition to Sydney St would only slow it down).  Anybody at Dockside could probably just as easily catch a ferry from Thornton Street to get to town, but there would be political ramifications if you cut off a direct connection (compare the River Plaza fiasco).

[#Metro]

Well it depends on how close is close. I agree with you though, close stops = S-L-O-W infuriating speeds.

Which gives me an idea. Monohull makes more sense between West End and Guyatt park than CityCat does! Monohull every 5 minutes, Citycat every 15...

Seriously, if they add MORE stops to the CityCat is is going to become CitySnail...

[#Metro]

I don't think KittyCats worked because they had more staff but low capacity so it wasn't worth it.
I'd like to see the monohulls replaced by CityCats and bridges. You can cycle over bridges easily...

[dwb]

I don't think KittyCats worked because they had more staff but low capacity so it wasn't worth it.
I'd like to see the monohulls replaced by CityCats and bridges. You can cycle over bridges easily...

I think the monohulls are fine for some cross river locations, however I too would like to see pedestrian/cycle bridges in the following locations:

priority (1) pedestrian and cycle link from forbes st west end - abc site toowong (altho maybe glider could be extended across?)
priority (2) pedestrian and cycle link from oxford st bulimba - newstead river park (altho maybe glider could be extended across?)
priority (3) pedestrian and cycle link from kangaroo point to cnr edward and alice sts city
priority (4) pedestrian and cycle link from boundary st west end - st lucia

and when are they going to block cars from accessing victoria bridge?
By removing cars you could simplify the traffic arrangements at both ends of the bridge and achieve a really good quality walking and cycling connection here and you'd also drastically improve bus access to and from the city. Half the current problem with KGS/QSBS is the rate at which buses can exit (blocked by the lights at Vic Bridge) and how many buses can use the Adelaide St/North Quay intersection... again blocked by cars trying to access the Vic Bridge. Grey St bridge is sufficient in my perspective given that Hale St is open... so what if it is tolled, it will be cheaper for the community as a whole to do this rather than build all the extra PT infrastructure that will be needed if nothing is done with Victoria Bridge!