160 - PM peak - should it start from the Cultural Centre?

[somebody]

The advantage of this is that it would free stop A9 for other runs.  I'd be thinking of 156 and 153.

Few people board the 160 at QSBS in my observations.

I feel strong disagreement coming.

[#Metro]

This is one of those routes that could permanently be removed from CC and sent via Capt. Cook Bridge all day.

[somebody]

This is one of those routes that could permanently be removed from CC and sent via Capt. Cook Bridge all day.

Strongly disagree.  As I said in the OP, this route gets poor loadings out of QSBS.

[#Metro]

Strongly disagree.  As I said in the OP, this route gets poor loadings out of QSBS.

My point was that it would free up "bus paths" to CC in peak...

[Gazza]

It gets poor loadings because it's a dumb route that duplicates others. Why do we even fund these again?

[somebody]

It gets poor loadings because it's a dumb route that duplicates others. Why do we even fund these again?

Did it get poor loadings when the 111 left from an adjacent stop in QSBS?  I doubt it.

[Gazza]

Start it from Roma St, with the 111 then.

[SurfRail]

Here's a real solution - scrap the 160 and beef up the 111. If more short workings are needed to commence at the Cultural Centre, they can just be shortworkings still badged as 111s - nobody needs to know where they came from.

If anybody needs to get from QSBS to Buranda, Greenslopes or HPW, they can catch other services (120/170/180 or the 555 which leaves from around 100m away on Elizabeth St, or change at CC).  Getting to Griffith Uni is a faster journey via the 130/134/135/140/150/155, and UMG/Garden City Depot have the 150 also.

In other words - completely covered by other services, so why not just take it out?

(161 and 183 too while we are at it - add extra suburban feeder runs instead on the Wishart loop and the 177.)

[Gazza]

I was gonna mention that too. If a route is a short working, then call it 111 A or something..A bit like the Perth train stopping pattern codes.
If somebody gets on a bus accidentally and finds out its not going all the way, they jump out and get the next 111 coming behind, and they are no further behind then what they would have been.

[Otto]

This is one of those routes that could permanently be removed from CC and sent via Capt. Cook Bridge all day.

Strongly disagree.  As I said in the OP, this route gets poor loadings out of QSBS.

I'm sure once word gets around, The 160 loadings will improve if it was to travel via Cptn Cook Bridge.

160 - PM peak - should it start from the Cultural Centre?

There would be no point in starting all 160's at the CC as it will still need to access the QSBS to turn around.

[somebody]

The only reasons to form a 160 starting at the Cultural Centre rather than a 111 are that the 160 is a shorter run, and I'm not hugely in favour of further supporting park 'n' ride.

160 - PM peak - should it start from the Cultural Centre?

There would be no point in starting all 160's at the CC as it will still need to access the QSBS to turn around.

I/B 160s can form 120/170/171/176/180s O/B.  So this isn't an issue.

I'm sure once word gets around, The 160 loadings will improve if it was to travel via Cptn Cook Bridge.

Surely you have noticed light loads on PM 201s and basically every other rocket leaving from Adelaide St which complements a QSBS route.

Besides, there is no reason to do this.  Majority of pax for the stops served board at KGSBS platform 2, and this is underutilised in the PM peak.

[achiruel]

I honestly don't see why the 160 even needs to exist.  88 does the EMP via Capt Cook Bridge route.
Re the 161 I'm not familiar with the loadings on that route, but surely it would be better to run a frequent 15 or 20 minute service to GC rather than the current hourly to the city. 

[O_128]

just had a look at what the 160 does. Are the ******* serious? Can it and just add more 111s, seriously WTF is the point of it. If anything it decreases legibility.

[AnonymouslyBad]

I'm not a fan of route variations, so I think short workings should be avoided unless they're absolutely essential. If there's evidence that the 111 (and others) are too full to take on passengers at CC, then fair enough, 160 is probably the best candidate.

With the P88 now supplementing the 111 (and doing it faster), I don't think the 160 needs to exist at all, and it probably wouldn't if not for TL's aversion to adjusting anything that might be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a "reduction" in service.

[SurfRail]

I'm not a fan of route variations, so I think short workings should be avoided unless they're absolutely essential. If there's evidence that the 111 (and others) are too full to take on passengers at CC, then fair enough, 160 is probably the best candidate.

If you have route variations for capacity reasons, you can design them so the experience is still seamless (ie a shortworking can originate further along the line, but will always terminate in the same place).  It is not important for passengers to know that, for operational reasons, their 111 started at the Cultural Centre, so long as it goes to 8 Mile Plains.  There were/are similar shortworkings elsewhere (eg 150s starting at Gowan/Comption Rd).

[jouzocha]

Do these short workings appear in the public timetables?  I had a quick look through the 150 TT and couldn't see any, although the P157 is effectively a short working of 150 that skips MH/SB/CC.

[somebody]

Do these short workings appear in the public timetables?  I had a quick look through the 150 TT and couldn't see any, although the P157 is effectively a short working of 150 that skips MH/SB/CC.

Sure do.  One I/B from Gowan/Compton @ 9:01am
O/B from Garden City @ 7am
O/B from St Laurence College (not on 150 route) @ 15:10
O/B from Cultural Centre @ 15:25 15:34 15:44 15:54 16:34 16:54 17:22 17:45