POLL: UQ Lakes services - is the 29 increase good?

[somebody]

I for one cannot believe the 29 increase plan.  I have never seen more than a few people on it.

I'm still strongly in favour of adding a 159, even if only in peak although I see a need for it interpeak at least.  That would reduce the need for Cultural Centre starters on the 150 run which would reduce the amount of air which needs to be carried between the Cultural Centre and Griffith Uni.

[ozbob]

I am prepared to wait to see how it goes.  High capacity buses will be on the 109.

[Mr X]

If a new route needs to be added, a 159 would be better than the 29 upgrade. Perhaps the 29 should be extended to Bulimba?

[SurfRail]

If additional capacity is needed between Boggo Road and UQ, this is actually the cheapest and easiest way to add it due to the short length of the route and the ability to turn buses around and stable them at the Gabba.

[#Metro]

I agree with SurfRail.

There is large demand for pax going to Boggo Road, so would make sense to just have a bus shuttling to that.

I will say something else- there needs to be more turn-arounds when they make these busways. It would help in these situations and adds more flexibility to the routing.

The alternative is to send 29 to Stones Corner busway turn-around, but that is already covered by 209 and 169 anyway, so 29 is actually a good compromise. Initially I thought route 29 was another P88 fiasco (why can't they just all change at Mater Hill to 109?) but like SurfRail says, there are reasons for everything.

[ozbob]

If additional capacity is needed between Boggo Road and UQ, this is actually the cheapest and easiest way to add it due to the short length of the route and the ability to turn buses around and stable them at the Gabba.

Yes, this seems to be the thinking.  Give it a go ..

[somebody]

If additional capacity is needed between Boggo Road and UQ, this is actually the cheapest and easiest way to add it due to the short length of the route and the ability to turn buses around and stable them at the Gabba.

That is the killer "if".  I say that the capacity is not needed there as much as it is on the Boggo Rd-Buranda-Garden City stretch.  There is no problem that I have noticed at 8:45am with too many people waiting to get on a bus at Boggo Rd bound for UQ Lakes.  There are issues with people being unable to board at Boggo Rd heading through Buranda, although the Eastern Busway has helped this with the 209 serving Buranda now.

[david]

I suppose it's a bit like the 402/412 on the other side of UQ. 402 acts as a great little sweeper service, but can often run empty if the 412 is running ahead of it. I think that might be the thinking for the 29. But nevertheless, UQ can never have too many bus services...

[somebody]

I suppose it's a bit like the 402/412 on the other side of UQ. 402 acts as a great little sweeper service, but can often run empty if the 412 is running ahead of it. I think that might be the thinking for the 29. But nevertheless, UQ can never have too many bus services...

There is limited capacity at UQ Lakes and you are forgoing the opportunity to create more useful services.  Improving peak services at the Ecosciences Precinct would also be good.

[david]

They're upgrading UQ Lakes station. Should be plenty of capacity after that. I do see potential for a 159, but if Boggo Rd/Park Rd is really the issue, then I think adding 29s is an appropriate solution for now.

[STB]

So they can add more 29s to cope with the short haul demand out of UQ but can't extend the 393 to cope with the short haul demand out of QUT?  Mind is boggled. 

[BrizCommuter]

So they can add more 29s to cope with the short haul demand out of UQ but can't extend the 393 to cope with the short haul demand out of QUT?  Mind is boggled. 

Agree, its really quite bizarre!

[somebody]

So they can add more 29s to cope with the short haul demand out of UQ but can't extend the 393 to cope with the short haul demand out of QUT?  Mind is boggled. 

Agree, its really quite bizarre!

Oh but the 29 adds seats cheaply, which means you can put out fine sounding media releases about how much you are doing for public transport.

On the 393:
Keeping the 393 mediocre increases loadings on the high profile service which is the 66, and also the 333.  Perhaps the 330 counts as a high profile service as its a candidate for BUZing.  If you fixed the 393 you would be less able to crow about how good your "Route 66" is.  Think they don't operate that way?  Then that leaves incompetence.  So there.  I personally don't believe the incompetence possiblity in these cases.  I won't relax!

Where are the loading statistics on the 29?

[Fattious]

Could someone post a link to info on the 159 route please.

[Mr X]

That Translink statement is pure BS in my opinion. Route 29 is always empty/mediocre loads. Route 192 could rival it in some periods.

[somebody]

Could someone post a link to info on the 159 route please.

Basically it's a proposed route to run from UQ Lakes, Park Rd, PAH, Garden City, then all 150 stops until its terminus which is up for debate.  I've suggested it running to Stretton also, although if the 150 is split this wouldn't be needed as the Warrigal Rd route can serve this area.

I find it quite strange that such a route doesn't receive more support on RAILBoT.  The usefulness of the route is obvious, especially in peak during uni semesters.  150 people (of which there are many) can't use the 209 for interchange at Buranda, and also have confusing options for interchange from the other UQ routes.  157 doesn't serve Garden City but the 156 does?  Strange for Warrigal Rd people, but Nemies Rd people need to decide whether they will interchange at Griffith Uni for the 153 and 150 or Garden City for the 150 and 156.  I cannot see that it is not required in peak hour at least.  I think interpeak also.  It would also ease crowding on the 150.

The only other people who cannot interchange at Buranda to Old Cleveland Rd and south are those on the 135 route, and a number of these can use Sunnybank station, the 119/120 or walk a bit further from the 139 in some cases.

It could be argued that if the 150 route is actually split then that would increase capacity enough that the 159 route would only need to be a peak hour special.

That Translink statement is pure BS in my opinion. Route 29 is always empty/mediocre loads. Route 192 could rival it in some periods.

Makes you wonder how many people clicking the first option have actually seen it pass, let alone used the route.

[Mr X]

In theory it sounds like a good idea as it replaces a link that was removed when the 209 was redirected, but because it terminates at Woolloongabba it isn't that useful. I'd like to see it either extended to Bulimba or perhaps up Main St towards RBWH?

[Golliwog]

I've used the 29 a few times between UQ and Boggo Rd. Pretty much all I do when I get to UQ Lakes heading home is hop on which ever bus looks to be leaving next/is closest to me/least crowded.

I don't know if this will fix the problems they hope it will, but I can see the logic of the move and will wait and see before condemning it. It helps as well that all the other routes are meant to be operated by the high capacity buses only as well.

As for the 159 idea, it sounds like what they need to do is sort out the 15x buses to have a common interchange stop on the bus way to change to the 139/169. Isn't that the point of having a trunk route like the 169?

[somebody]

In theory it sounds like a good idea as it replaces a link that was removed when the 209 was redirected, but because it terminates at Woolloongabba it isn't that useful. I'd like to see it either extended to Bulimba or perhaps up Main St towards RBWH?

I think Mowbray Park Ferry would be a logical place as it allows interchange to 230/231/235/236/227 and could allow interchange to/from 216/221 if a stop for those routes is added there.

Bulimba is good too, but I wouldn't discount the value of the Mowbray Park stop.  If I live in that end of New Farm using such a route and the ferry is more attractive than going via the Cultural Centre.

[somebody]

As for the 159 idea, it sounds like what they need to do is sort out the 15x buses to have a common interchange stop on the bus way to change to the 139/169. Isn't that the point of having a trunk route like the 169?

If the 151 remains that can only be Griffith Uni which is already reportedly experiencing congestion.  Of course, this route needs to be culled, and now!

[somebody]

I've used the 29 a few times between UQ and Boggo Rd.

Care to mention your experience of the loadings on the 29?

[O_128]

I've used the 29 a few times between UQ and Boggo Rd.

Care to mention your experience of the loadings on the 29?

Ive used it a fair bit and the most has been 10 people on it.

[Golliwog]

I'd agree, though sometimes there are more on it between Boggo Rd and UQ.

[somebody]

Whereas the 109, 139 and 169 services leave UQ Lakes completely full often.  People are unable to board these services at Park Rd.  People getting off are outnumbered by those getting on.

Poor rail services at Park Rd don't help the uptake of the interchange option.

In spite of the lack of support, I maintain my pro-159 anti-29 position.

[somebody]

I am prepared to wait to see how it goes.  High capacity buses will be on the 109.

So no media release on this one then.  I'm really not comfortable with this plan.  I don't know of anyone being denied boarding on a 109/139/169 in the interpeak period (10am-3pm).  Setting myself up for a fall there, but I haven't seen heavy loadings on any of these buses in that period.

If the peak 29 had been extended to Mowbray Park Ferry with the 216+221 serving those stops then I would be far more comfortable with the plan.  Or add a 159.

[ozbob]

Yes, we need to wait to see how it goes.  Most seem to agree.

[Golliwog]

I am prepared to wait to see how it goes.  High capacity buses will be on the 109.

So no media release on this one then.  I'm really not comfortable with this plan.  I don't know of anyone being denied boarding on a 109/139/169 in the interpeak period (10am-3pm).  Setting myself up for a fall there, but I haven't seen heavy loadings on any of these buses in that period.

If the peak 29 had been extended to Mowbray Park Ferry with the 216+221 serving those stops then I would be far more comfortable with the plan.  Or add a 159.

If it helps, the 139 and 169 are also going to be higher capacity buses as well once they make the change. Not willing to say your wrong about nobody yet being denied service between the peaks, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has happened.

[dwb]

I am prepared to wait to see how it goes.  High capacity buses will be on the 109.

What about a media release asking for one column of seats down the bus to be removed for more standing space/ milling space.

Whenever I get an artic the major issue seems to be how people move around in the interior, I don't understand why we can't have artics up here with more than two doors and or wider aisles?

[somebody]

It's the lack of the third door which annoys me.  I'm only going 3km but am I expected to walk up to the far end of the bus to get off?  I'm inclined to get off at the front door in spite of people getting on there.