POLL: 393 replacement

[STB]

I still don't like the "just extend the 393 to Roma St" plan it does very little, if anything for people trying to get beyond Roma St (KGS, CC, and beyond). That why for capacity issues between RBWH and Roma St I favour extending the 111 or 222 northward. I'd actually like to see the 393 scrapped with the 66 being extended (part time or fulltime as is deemed necessary) to cover at least to Bowen Hills, if not on to Tenneriffe.

Then obviously you don't catch it or go near there to catch it, and thus don't know what you are talking about.  I go there nearly on a daily basis during semester and continue to head down that was once a week for meetings with a group I'm with at QUT.  Based on my timetable for S1 2012, I will continue to do so as I have done this semester and the previous semester, continue to head to QUT KG on nearly a daily basis.  And I'm not the only person who has taken note of the people waiting for those services to board, other RBOT members have seen it, and the big bosses of TL and QR has experienced it.  I was there!  They were boarded onto a packed to a brim 66 (with people coming from RBWH already on board) with plenty of staff and students still waiting on the platform.  The bosses had their own staff forced to wait for the next service as they all couldn't board that 66 and the following services didn't turn up straight away either to clean up the rest!  You seriously can have up to 50 students and staff arriving on the platform every 60 seconds at the peak of semester and this can occur throughout the day, not just at peak hour!  It's just a constant stream and the current services cannot cope with the demand, inbound and outbound! Northbound and southbound!

There are plenty of people wanting to catch it to Roma St but cannot and have to settle for other services with are already loaded on with workers from RBWH and beyond. 

Extend the 393 and those trying to get to Roma St will have a much happier time doing so, while keeping it linked up to Bowen Hills so those on the northside can catch the 393 to Bowen Hills rather than every man and his dog going via Roma St.  It's about adding capacity and spreading the load, although it seems that you fail to understand this!

Don't forget, myself, and Ozbob have seen quite a few people already using the current 393 between Bowen Hills and Teneriffe, higher than I expected it to be, hence there still has to be some sort of service linking those two places, and that's something that I'll keep an eye on while going to QUT KG.

Can I ask what qualifies you to argue the counter point?  You really are making yourself sound as though you have no idea on what you are talking about.

[ozbob]

Extending the 393 is an immediate part solution to the festering issue, we are not suggesting it is ' the solution '.  Think a little wider.  Longer term solutions will need to be implemented and this is going to take some time as the northern bus way changes will need to be considered.   There is a review of 66 and a number of other bus routes, these are more significant changes and will take time.  To give the punters some immediate relief the 393 does offer some hope, and would be cost neutral.

[dwb]

No, I was thinking Roma St-Normanby-QUT KG-RCH-Valley-Main St-PA Hospital

Ahh ok, so not a loop then...

[somebody]

I still don't like the "just extend the 393 to Roma St" plan it does very little, if anything for people trying to get beyond Roma St (KGS, CC, and beyond). That why for capacity issues between RBWH and Roma St I favour extending the 111 or 222 northward. I'd actually like to see the 393 scrapped with the 66 being extended (part time or fulltime as is deemed necessary) to cover at least to Bowen Hills, if not on to Tenneriffe.

Then obviously you don't catch it or go near there to catch it, and thus don't know what you are talking about.  I go there nearly on a daily basis during semester and continue to head down that was once a week for meetings with a group I'm with at QUT.  Based on my timetable for S1 2012, I will continue to do so as I have done this semester and the previous semester, continue to head to QUT KG on nearly a daily basis.  And I'm not the only person who has taken note of the people waiting for those services to board, other RBOT members have seen it, and the big bosses of TL and QR has experienced it.  I was there!  They were boarded onto a packed to a brim 66 (with people coming from RBWH already on board) with plenty of staff and students still waiting on the platform.  The bosses had their own staff forced to wait for the next service as they all couldn't board that 66 and the following services didn't turn up straight away either to clean up the rest!  You seriously can have up to 50 students and staff arriving on the platform every 60 seconds at the peak of semester and this can occur throughout the day, not just at peak hour!  It's just a constant stream and the current services cannot cope with the demand, inbound and outbound! Northbound and southbound!

There are plenty of people wanting to catch it to Roma St but cannot and have to settle for other services with are already loaded on with workers from RBWH and beyond. 

Extend the 393 and those trying to get to Roma St will have a much happier time doing so, while keeping it linked up to Bowen Hills so those on the northside can catch the 393 to Bowen Hills rather than every man and his dog going via Roma St.  It's about adding capacity and spreading the load, although it seems that you fail to understand this!

Don't forget, myself, and Ozbob have seen quite a few people already using the current 393 between Bowen Hills and Teneriffe, higher than I expected it to be, hence there still has to be some sort of service linking those two places, and that's something that I'll keep an eye on while going to QUT KG.

Can I ask what qualifies you to argue the counter point?  You really are making yourself sound as though you have no idea on what you are talking about.

I side with Golliwog, even though I don't support the 111 or 222 extension.

While it galls me that the underutilised 393 has remained in its current form for over 3 years, if the 111 was extended to QUT KG that would do more for INB capacity than extending the 393.  111 is more frequent, and usually uses higher capacity buses so GW's change would do more for capacity than the 393 extension.  However, the 393 extension is needed anyway, to Roma St but not King George Square (would result in an under utilised stop).  If there is demand for the Teneriffe connection, then just adding some short workings to Bowen Hills should give an adequate frequency there.

The main down side of the 111 extension is that it would result in under utilised 111s weekends and evenings.  The other down side is that I don't have much support for the concept of through routing which some people seem to love on here.

I don't see why the alternative of the 111 extension would receive a "thus don't know what you are talking about" response.

[Golliwog]

STB, no I haven't been there, I go to UQ (though I have visited QUTKG once or twice a while ago). To draw an anaolgy with UQ Lakes, I see extending the 393 just to Roma St like creating a route that goes just between UQ Lakes and Park Rd. I have no doubt it would do wonders for those waiting at the lakes trying to get to Park Rd, but it does very little to allow other users to get to other destination. Sure, they won't have to squeeze as tightly into the next bus, but if instead of making a short little route to Park Rd, you put those buses into any of the other UQ routes passing through Park Rd then they can use one of those if its going to the right destination, or if its not then they still have the option of the less squishy bus. Instead of serving just the needs of those wanting to go UQ Lakes to Park Rd, it can serve other needs as well.

[somebody]

You seriously can have up to 50 students and staff arriving on the platform every 60 seconds at the peak of semester and this can occur throughout the day,

Clearly an exaggeration.  Even though there are 3 buses arriving every 15 minutes off peak and 4 every 10 minutes in the peak direction, ignoring the 393 which also runs every 15 minutes off peak, it is clear that the capacity isn't near to what would be required to shift that.  100 people arriving every 15 minutes, maybe, but that is nearly an order of magnitude less than you are claiming.

[somebody]

If there is a need to have the RBH service and also the Bowen Hills Railway Station service then I'd make these suggestions:
Westbound (Continuing to Roma St)

Eastbound (Starting from Roma St)

Basically chopping of Edmonstone Rd and Commercial Rd.
Also reverses direction Westbound along Abbotsford Rd so that it always travels north on this road.  This allows serving Bowen Hills Railway station properly in both directions, i.e. without needing to cross the road or have a long walk westbound.

Can't imagine the residents of Cintra Rd would be too happy about it though!  I think this is operable, but heavy traffic could cause issues for the turn out of Cintra Rd heading west, and perhaps the turn out of Abbotsford Rd in both directions.

[SurfRail]

If there is a need to have the RBH service and also the Bowen Hills Railway Station service then I'd make these suggestions:
Westbound (Continuing to Roma St)

Eastbound (Starting from Roma St)

Basically chopping of Edmonstone Rd and Commercial Rd.
Also reverses direction Westbound along Abbotsford Rd so that it always travels north on this road.  This allows serving Bowen Hills Railway station properly in both directions, i.e. without needing to cross the road or have a long walk westbound.

Can't imagine the residents of Cintra Rd would be too happy about it though!  I think this is operable, but heavy traffic could cause issues for the turn out of Cintra Rd heading west, and perhaps the turn out of Abbotsford Rd in both directions.

I think it would be more workable from an operational point of view to go Skyring/Breakfast Creek/Edmondstone/Folkestone/Abbotsford.  Less wear on the vehicles due to the gradient on Cintra and makes it more legible.

[somebody]

Heading eastbound I'm not fussed either way on Cintra Rd, but westbound I think something needs to change with the pedestrian arrangements here.

[somebody]

Here's an alternative bypassing Cintra Rd and still keeping the part where it's heading north on Abbotsford Rd.  It's a little longer and slower as it loops around Perry Park.  Bowen Hills pax wouldn't mind IMO as they have an easier interchange.

[morb]

 To give the punters some immediate relief the 393 does offer some hope, and would be cost neutral.

Not sure why you think "cost neutral", the 393 appears to run on 3 buses at the moment.  Extension to Roma Street would require a 4th bus for sure, plus where would the bus lay over at Roma Street?

[somebody]

 To give the punters some immediate relief the 393 does offer some hope, and would be cost neutral.

Not sure why you think "cost neutral", the 393 appears to run on 3 buses at the moment.  Extension to Roma Street would require a 4th bus for sure, plus where would the bus lay over at Roma Street?

Might increase the costs of running the 393 but it would ease pressure on the 66 and other buses out of Roma St, while also increasing PT use, so on a whole of system approach it is likely to pay for itself, and then some.

[dwb]

One bus is nothing in the scheme of things... We've got over 1000 of them!

[somebody]

One bus is nothing in the scheme of things... We've got over 1000 of them!

More importantly, applying that one bus to the 393 would almost certainly free up two or more buses from the 66, assuming the 66 is rebalanced into the 393.

[somebody]

What would be so hard about establishing a bus stop either on:
(a) Folkestone St approaching Abbotsford Rd
(b) Abbotsford Rd far side of Folkestone St

(a) is more preferred as it doesn't block traffic on Abbotsford Rd.

Doing so, and updating the westbound 393 to use Folkestone St would pretty much sort the pedestrian issues here.