• Welcome to RAIL - Back On Track Forum.
 

General Network Overhaul

Started by #Metro, January 09, 2012, 09:47:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

#Metro

I've been reading a lot of the complaints/discussions about high fares etc and thinking about what can be done to move towards a system that is fast, frequent and less wasteful or resources. This generally concerns bus as trains have fixed guideway and the issues there are generally limited to frequency, timetable 'fat' and feeder services to rail. The same with ferry.

So here are a few general points, hopefully something more specific and coherent will come from it which can be implemented.

1. A decision needs to be made on how much welfare versus how much 'patronage' services will be run and capped. This means the "400 m walking distance of most houses to PT" needs to be looked at. Does it make sense to have 'country town' standards applied to something that is now a big city? Are there cases where the rule can be relaxed (i.e. if near a BUZ the distance can become larger, say 800 m like a train station?)

2. A general move to less bus routes that carry more people. (Fewer, stronger lines).

3. Get rid of most pre-paid buses. With 80-90% of people using GoCard, pre-paid services duplicate perfectly good existing services and, thus by extension, leave 20% of people waiting for the next service.

4. A focus on interchange at major suburban shopping centres (Chermside/Toombul/Indooroopilly/Brookside/Cannon Hill/Garden City)

5. Simple legible BUZ routes - review them before BUZification so that "legacy routing" isn't set in stone - see the tail end of BUZ 180 for example.

other ideas?
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

Stillwater

At railway stations, rather than park and ride facilities, give greater consideration to 'kiss and ride' facilities.  One partner drives the other to the station and, with engine still running, they exchange a quick peck on the cheek before the commuting partner jumps on a train, leaving the other partner with the car.

Mr X

New Farm end of the 196 is another example, the stupid dogleg around Barker St/Merthyr Rd needs to be addressed.

I'd like to see major changes being done on a "trial basis" before full implementation- eg. sector 2 rail reviews/stopping pattern changes, to weed out issues which may arise.
The user once known as Happy Bus User (HBU)
The opinions contained within my posts and profile are my own and don't necessarily reflect those of the greater Rail Back on Track community.

Cam

Quote from: Stillwater on January 09, 2012, 10:07:12 AM
At railway stations, rather than park and ride facilities, give greater consideration to 'kiss and ride' facilities.

Good idea. Some of the commuter car spaces at our local station are just a couple of metres from the platform entrance but the unofficial "kiss & ride" area starts about 50m away. In fact, there are car spaces closer to the platform entrance than the incoming bus stop & most of the car park is closer to the entrance than the outgoing bus stop across the road.

Pedestrian access to railway stations needs a major overhaul too. Many major stations require you to walk to the far end of the station to access the platform. Why not build an entrance at the other end?

SurfRail

Quote from: Cam on January 09, 2012, 12:45:59 PM
Quote from: Stillwater on January 09, 2012, 10:07:12 AM
At railway stations, rather than park and ride facilities, give greater consideration to 'kiss and ride' facilities.

Good idea. Some of the commuter car spaces at our local station are just a couple of metres from the platform entrance but the unofficial "kiss & ride" area starts about 50m away. In fact, there are car spaces closer to the platform entrance than the incoming bus stop & most of the car park is closer to the entrance than the outgoing bus stop across the road.

Pedestrian access to railway stations needs a major overhaul too. Many major stations require you to walk to the far end of the station to access the platform. Why not build an entrance at the other end?


One of the major reasons I keep suggesting that Rocklea should be closed and merged with Salisbury in the Nyanda area.  Try getting there from the eastern side on foot (or by any other means for that matter short of flight)!
Ride the G:

Cam

Quote from: SurfRail on January 09, 2012, 13:08:53 PM
One of the major reasons I keep suggesting that Rocklea should be closed and merged with Salisbury in the Nyanda area.  Try getting there from the eastern side on foot (or by any other means for that matter short of flight)!

I considered looking at a house to buy in John Bright St, Moorooka several years ago. It was only about 250m from the platforms at Rocklea but required a 1km (approx) walk to the station because there wasn't a crossing of Rocky Waterholes Creek between Muriel Ave & Gladstone St.

achiruel

In such a circumstance, shouldn't improving pedestrian access to the station be considered ahead of deciding to close the station(s)?

#Metro

Save the nostalgia. Rocklea = CUT!!!
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

SurfRail

Quote from: achiruel on January 09, 2012, 16:55:16 PM
In such a circumstance, shouldn't improving pedestrian access to the station be considered ahead of deciding to close the station(s)?


There is only so much you can do when the intervening land is used as an industrial hardstand.  Even if there was an easement, you could probably name it Damnation Alley.

Back to the general theme - I think they are far too specific.  They tend to focus on operator by operator arrangements, which produces very fragmented networks in places like the northern region.

They should have a basic strategic plan for each of the 10 regions sitting under their Network Plan, with a program of rationalisation, removing waste, improving cross-town links, limiting the number of route numbers bound for the city, looking at the public transport network holistically instead of in little fiefs, committing to deadlines for reviews etc to ensure options are continually being developed.

Underpinning that, indeed before they even start, they need to review the basics.  Where should bus stops go?  How far apart should they be?  What should our buses be like?  Will our interchanges have enough capacity for the next 20-30 years on greater than current trends (because they are always too low)?  How can services be made faster?  What are the best ways to aggressively target single occupant car users with good incentives like frequency and speed and directness?
Ride the G:

Golliwog

TT, what specifically do you see is wrong with the Garden City end of the 180?
There is no silver bullet... but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

#Metro

QuoteTT, what specifically do you see is wrong with the Garden City end of the 180?
   

As a CFN BUZ route this should stick to Cavendish and Newham roads - direct and fast/rapid and legible. Sticking to main roads makes it dead easy to know where the bus goes- it goes just where most cars go...

Other routes can do the windy suburban bits.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

HappyTrainGuy

Minimum 30 minute frequencies across the entire network from first to last service. Get out the sledgehammer and bludgen to death the idea that every bus should go to the city. Introduce 2 simple timetables (Weekday and weekend services. None of this weekday, saturday, sunday, public holiday timetable crap anymore). Bring on more loop/feeder routes between railway stations, interchanges and the main network corridors. Futher out routes should terminate at railway stations and interchanges where possible to connect to higher frequency/capacity services (ie Once Kippa Ring is up scrap all the city bpund routes and have additional services from the shorter routes flood the area with services linking Shorncliffe-Redcliffe-Kippa Ring-North Lakes).

somebody

Quote from: tramtrain on January 09, 2012, 23:26:28 PM
QuoteTT, what specifically do you see is wrong with the Garden City end of the 180?
   

As a CFN BUZ route this should stick to Cavendish and Newham roads - direct and fast/rapid and legible. Sticking to main roads makes it dead easy to know where the bus goes- it goes just where most cars go...

Other routes can do the windy suburban bits.
The bit of the 180 through Mansfield is fine.  Just like the bits at the end of the 330 and 444 are fine.

Golliwog

That's what I think as well Simon. Sure, why we have frequent buses/Pt running down most main roads, maybe look at switching it, but for now it acts as a good frequent till late feeder to Garden City. If people towards the GC end detest the windyness, they can just catch it towards GC and change to a SEB service.
There is no silver bullet... but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Gazza

I havent got too much of a beef with some degree of windiness right at the end of a route. By that point there are very few people on the bus, so the person minutes wasted by doing so are minimal, and the increase in coverage outweighs any losses due to this tiny bit of 'slowness'.

Milk running halfway through a route or near the CBD is death though  >:D


Golliwog

There is no silver bullet... but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

#Metro

Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

🡱 🡳