433 & 445 Short Running

[Gazza]

Routing of the 433 is a bit horrid, 445 is ok-ish (Guess we'll have to live with the Koala Cemetery diversion)
But thats not the point of this topic.

Both routes are good candidates for being short run feeders to Indooroopilly, where you change to a 444 or 88, or an ex Centenary Route.

The 445 takes:
-48 mins to reach the CBD
-20 mins to reach Indro.

The 433 takes:
-50 mins to reach the CBD
-20 mins to reach Indro, even on trips that go via the Koala Sanctuary.

In both cases, terminating at Indro works because it comes in at under half the route km, and under half the time in service.

The 20 min travel time from the terminus to Indro means buses can spend 10 mins each end for driver toilet breaks etc before heading off again. A perfect 30 min cycle.

Thus we can double the frequency at no cost, and this offsets the transfer penalty.

Thoughts?

[somebody]

What would cover the all stops service between Toowong and Indro then?

[#Metro]

P44 of course 

[SurfRail]

What would cover the all stops service between Toowong and Indro then?

I think they could just rip out the yellow stops altogether and resequence the express stops to add an extra one or 2.  (This treatment could probably be implemented on a number of corridors.)

[#Metro]

There needs to be a discussion on how much welfare and how much patorange services there will be. It seems there needs to be triple or quadruple everything under the current setup - one bus to do the all stops, one bus to do the express, one bus to do the rocket one bus as pre-paid. Too many buses!

A bus every 4 minutes on Coro drive in the off-peak is also more than enough. No need to send a bazillion routes down there, make interchange at Indooroopilly.

[somebody]

What would cover the all stops service between Toowong and Indro then?

I think they could just rip out the yellow stops altogether and resequence the express stops to add an extra one or 2.  (This treatment could probably be implemented on a number of corridors.)

For the love of God, no! (Not sure which stops are yellow - thought it was blue or white?)

I recently used buses in Sydney, and it really was impressive how much slower the service was.  Tickets were some of the reason, but frequent stopping also a reason.

I actually think that routes like the 444 could stop at less locations, like perhaps Roma St/Toowong/Indro, especially at times the 88 is running.  Couldn't do that in Brisbane though could we?

[Gazza]

I don't see what's so special about many of the non 444/88 stops. Many are in spitting distance of the other type of stop anyway.
People gravitate away from them because the 444 and 88 stops have better service.

For the west, Im not sure why someone coming from say Fig Tree Pocket on the 443 has a fundamental need to be dropped off In a separate location on Coro to someone coming from Kenmore on the 444.

[somebody]

There is a need to provide coverage to the blue stops otherwise the system isn't catering to the infirm.  Taringa GCL to Indro Interchange is 1.4km!  Add in that some people might need to walk to get to Moggill Rd, and you do have quite a long walk for some people to reach the nearest express stops.  People do use the service sometimes (not often), so there's a few reasons why I see need for it.

[Gazza]

Are there other routes that could remain to cover the bit then ?

[somebody]

Are there other routes that could remain to cover the bit then ?

If you added stops to them.  433 and 445 are the only all stops routes on the bit from Toowong to Indro.

[Gazza]

So If the p88 had a couple of Stops added, then stopping to get the odd infirm person is not gonna kill journey times, would it?

[somebody]

So If the p88 had a couple of Stops added, then stopping to get the odd infirm person is not gonna kill journey times, would it?

Not really, no.  That's one idea, but I'm sure you know what I would say to having the P88 continuing to Indro, while the 433 is truncated to Indro-Kenmore Sth.

[SurfRail]

What would cover the all stops service between Toowong and Indro then?

I think they could just rip out the yellow stops altogether and resequence the express stops to add an extra one or 2.  (This treatment could probably be implemented on a number of corridors.)

For the love of God, no! (Not sure which stops are yellow - thought it was blue or white?)

I recently used buses in Sydney, and it really was impressive how much slower the service was.  Tickets were some of the reason, but frequent stopping also a reason.

I actually think that routes like the 444 could stop at less locations, like perhaps Roma St/Toowong/Indro, especially at times the 88 is running.  Couldn't do that in Brisbane though could we?

Blue signplate + yellow pole = all stops
White signplate + white pole = express

There is some overlap where signage has changed (for instance there is a white pole with a blue signplate at Indooroopilly School inbound, and from memory the new express stop at Coorparoo was previously an all-stops only sign so it is yellow with a white signplate).

I subscribe to the Canberra theory, which is that bus stops just need to be placed so that you don't need so many types of services.  Coro Drive is actually reasonable to be honest, but there are plenty of roads in Brisbane with excessive bus stops (eg Old Cleveland Road, certain suburban tour routes like the 334 with one in every street).

[#Metro]

I subscribe to the Canberra theory, which is that bus stops just need to be placed so that you don't need so many types of services.  Coro Drive is actually reasonable to be honest, but there are plenty of roads in Brisbane with excessive bus stops (eg Old Cleveland Road, certain suburban tour routes like the 334 with one in every street).

There is ONE bus stop 500m - 800m apart and that's it. And the buses go ZOOM screaming down the arterial roads at 80 km/hour, in fact when I came back to Brisbane I did not believe just how absolutely slow the buses here are. If you insist on quadrupicated bus services, then you will get lumped with paying 75% subsidy and high fares.

Canberra also does not have bus lane phobia or interchange phobia like up here seems to. Bus lanes on main arterials, on the weekends everything is converted to a feeder terminating at Belconnen or Tuggeranong/Woden except for a handful of trunk routes.

Services between Belconnen-CBD-Tuggeranong-Woden are all express. There is one coverage route, the number 3 and it is designed to be the "whipping boy" / rubbish route, it stops everywhere and deviates everywhere, extremely slow, but it allows the other routes to be express. I think the maximum patronage on that route was two pax.

Canberra buses are FAST (80 km/hour). When I came back to Brisbane I could not believe how slow everything was.

[Gazza]

But if the 433 and 88 have completley different span and frequency, it's hard to join them :s

[somebody]

But if the 433 and 88 have completley different span and frequency, it's hard to join them :s

Correct.

[HappyTrainGuy]

...back to Brisbane I did not believe just how absolutely slow the buses here are. If you insist on quadrupicated bus services, then you will get lumped with paying 75% subsidy and high fares.

Canberra buses are FAST (80 km/hour). When I came back to Brisbane I could not believe how slow everything was.

Sums up my experience whenever I'm on the 174 to Mt Gravatt during the day 

[Gazza]

So in conclusion, is there any real reason to not do this?
There are only minor issues to solve, but otherwhise it's mostly positives and not many negatives.

[SurfRail]

So in conclusion, is there any real reason to not do this?
There are only minor issues to solve, but otherwhise it's mostly positives and not many negatives.

I certainly don't think so.  I can't imagine there is anything appealling to regular commuters on these services other than not having to change buses - but there are now enough services at Indooroopilly that this is surely not a problem. 

I think they need to be bold with things like this, and damn the perceived political fallout.  It will all eventually be forgotten once people realise it works. 

It really is like pulling off a band-aid slowly with the Queensland Government most days...

[somebody]

So in conclusion, is there any real reason to not do this?
There are only minor issues to solve, but otherwhise it's mostly positives and not many negatives.

Conversely, is there much reason to do it?  A 10% reduction in service-km on the corridor combined with inflicting a change on some and slowing down others service.

Fix the CBD stops and you have an improvement to all on the inner corridor and can remove the 88 for a 20% reduction in service-km on the corridor without inflicting a change or slowing down anyone's service.

[Gazza]

Here's my take.

Before we start, lets think of the P88 as being City-Indro and purely a 444 counterpart. forget the 8MP bit for now.

What you are saying is that its silly to have two routes terminating against each other, because it needlessly denies an low hanging fruit' single seat journey, and wastes resources through doubling up on layover and turnaround time.

The bit we are getting stuck on is what/how we should do the tacking on.

Here are the models. Lets assume the trunk has some form of 4 bph service.

1) Four hourly single seats converging to form a 4ph trunk, co-ordinated city stops.

2) Two half hourly single seats converging to form a 4bph trunk, co-ordinated city stops.

3) A BUZ 4ph trunk terminating at a midpoint, with all other routes also terminating (This is the situation you don't like)

4) Say 4 routes. 3 of them must terminate at a midpoint, but one route is the "chosen one" that gets tacked on, and upgraded to a BUZ, to form a longer single seat.

Option 1 is similar to what we have now (sans city stop co-ordination), but I dont like it because it leaves the ends with crap hourly frequency, and the whole point of these feeder proposals is to double the frequency at the extremities without actually increasing costs.

Option 2 is only marginally better.

Option 3, yeah agree shouldn't be done because it misses potential.

Option 4, yeah ok, lets do it

I would agree that having the 88 just continuing to be hanging there, finishing at Indro, with everything else having to interchange, being less than ideal.

But we keep arguing on what should be tacked on the end. In another thread you said the 460 would make little sense to terminate with the P88 "still there". In this thread you said the 433. And so forth.
In either case, either of these tacked on routes would need a big ramp up in frequency and span to join on. In other words option 4, the "chosen one".
And we can only really pick one right?

For me the answer is crystal clear.

Have the 444
"88" gets extended to Centenary (one of the two routes described here as being needed for good coverage).

At this point we have 7.5 min frequency at Indro.

So by then, I think the Moggil Rd corridor is maxed out in terms of the number of buses needed for really 'good service'.

Add in the St Lucia routes, and the Toowong-CBD part is also maxed out (Though city stop locations for the 412 need to be sorted to take advantage of this)

If we go ahead and do the other centenary BUZ that was discussed here, we are up to 5 min frequency at Indro.

So by now, there is little to be gained by sending any more buses down the corridor, because its not like there is tangible benefit from going above 5 min frequency (IMO)

Where does that leave all other western routes?
Well they all then terminate at Indro, because none of them are really important enough to be going to the CBD, except say a couple of peak hour rockets.

In conclusion, maybe not do it now, but certainly in a situation where at least one Centenary BUZ exists..do it!

[Gazza]

Conversely, is there much reason to do it?  A 10% reduction in service-km on the corridor combined with inflicting a change on some and slowing down others service.

Fix the CBD stops and you have an improvement to all on the inner corridor and can remove the 88 for a 20% reduction in service-km on the corridor without inflicting a change or slowing down anyone's service.

I know this sounds like a weak response too, and I'm not defending the 88 in its current form....

But If TL is gonna insit on having it, then truncating the 433 and 445 as described is the "path of least resistance", under the current situation, to give both of those routes doubled frequency at no cost.

[somebody]

"88" gets extended to Centenary (one of the two routes described here as being needed for good coverage).

I'd be happy with that, but I think it's unlikely to be done while the 88 is continuing to 8mp.  Dividing up the 88 would be a good move though - the 8mp could connect to QUT KG then.

[SurfRail]

There is a certain irony in this - somebody may wish to correct me (Andrew would if he is still reading here), but I think there was previously an all stops route to the Centenary suburbs way back when known as the 88.

[somebody]

There is a certain irony in this - somebody may wish to correct me (Andrew would if he is still reading here), but I think there was previously an all stops route to the Centenary suburbs way back when known as the 88.

I vaguely remember someone posting on an 88 (A thru E) going to Brookfield. Perhaps only some marks went there, others to Centenary.

[achiruel]

There is a certain irony in this - somebody may wish to correct me (Andrew would if he is still reading here), but I think there was previously an all stops route to the Centenary suburbs way back when known as the 88.

I think that may have been a Moggill route, but I could be thinking of the 82.  Not that I ever caught it, imagine that, all stops to Moggill 

[Gazza]

What would cover the all stops service between Toowong and Indro then?

415

[somebody]

What would cover the all stops service between Toowong and Indro then?

415

That's a delayed reaction!

There are a few non express stops that one can't cover.  1.4km between Taringa GCL and Indro interchange.  Hmm.

[Gazza]

It took me that long to realise the route existed. 

[Andrew]

You could probably truncate the 433.  Actually I was thinking, you could cut back the 433 & 435 to Indro and double the 430 frequency.  I think the 445 would be a hard one to cut because there is so much unique route past Indooroopilly.  That would make the increased cost overall a lot smaller.  The other option would be to re-do the 432, 433 & 435 routes, perhaps putting a Brookfield route up Rafting Ground Road.