Should 310 Sandgate be added to the CFN?

[#Metro]

Hello,

I'm wanting to gauge what people think about adding a Sandgate Road BUZ to the CFN. I'm deliberately trying to suppress the number of routes we add to the CFN because it is mean to be the minimum basic network - the more routes, the more money required, the harder and longer it will be to implement.

The 310 does in parts mirror the Shorncliffe line, however there are many sections on Sandgate Road that are nowhere near the rail line. This service could be used as a feeder the Sandgate Rail and also cover the Sandgate Road arterial and also link Toombul Bus interchange (where TL in the future can terminate most other direct routes to become feeder services emptying into the trunk, line haul Northern Rail line at Toombul and the 310 BUZ services.) That pedestrian overpass proposed for Toombul would come in handy!

I notice that the 310 peters out within the BCC boundaries. Do people think that this was done on purpose to stop the bus crossing the BCC border into the former Redcliffe Council Zone?

It takes 45 minutes to travel from Brighton to Queen Street F/S on the 310, while on the train it takes 33 minutes, so the train is 12 minutes faster, but when you take away the transfer penalty (waiting time) of say 7 minutes, it is not that much different.

http://translink.com.au/travel-information/services-and-timetables/buses/route-310

[#Metro]

This bus is currently only hourly  on Weekends. Terrible... So every 2nd train is missed out!

[somebody]

Short answer: Yes.

Arguably, it should be extended over the Hornibrook Hwy/bridge. 

Alternate argument: Currently Brighton is double served with a feeder to Sandgate, and the 310.  Just have one way of doing it.  So that would mean the 315 is abolished, and the 310 is truncated to Sandgate.

Alternate argument 2: BUZ the 310, abolish the 311, 312, 313, 314.  690 & 695 rail feeders from Sandgate cover Beaconsfield Tce, and the 310 serves the western part of Brighton.

I'd go with the latter.

[#Metro]

What's the feeder into Sandgate? 311?
These are local welfare/coverage services.

http://translink.com.au/travel-information/services-and-timetables/buses/route-311

Alternate argument 2: BUZ the 310, abolish the 311, 312, 313, 314.  690 & 695 rail feeders from Sandgate cover Beaconsfield Tce, and the 310 serves the western part of Brighton.

I'd go with the latter.

^^ I agree with this too. It's nice having local services but let's be real, shove a BUZ in there and there won't be much need for them. I suspect the BUZ catchments are larger as well than regular buses.

[#Metro]

Arguably, it should be extended over the Hornibrook Hwy/bridge. 

My thoughts are don't do this as the Kippa Ring Rail line is going in there anyway.

[Gazza]

 310 should be CFN - I reckon most main roads, north south and east west should have a decent bus service....But if its a Road that might conceivably compete with rail, make it an all stops bus.

My thoughts are don't do this as the Kippa Ring Rail line is going in there anyway.

My thoughts are that it should, for that very reason. Sandgate to Kippa Ring would be like a Great Circle Line of the north.

It runs between Kippa Ring and Sandgate, so its like a double ended feeder bus. Someone from the South of Redcliffe might find it more convenient to go south and use Sandgate Station, someone from the northern part might find using Kippa Ring station better.

If someone lives halfway, it could be 50-50 depending on what they are doing.

The network should aim to multiply the number of possible trips by connecting nodes together and allowing travel in both directions.

Even if its not the 310, a Sandgate to Kippa Ring bus is a no brainer IMO.

[somebody]

Sandgate to Kippa-Ring (and Rothwell) is already provided by the 695.

[HappyTrainGuy]

326 also feeds into Sandgate from Bracken Ridge/Taigum/Boondall.

Agreed with Gazza. There needs to be a service north to connect the two regions. Otherwise Shorncliffe to Redcliffe via Northgate..... haha gtfo. Brighton/Sandgate/Shorncliffe should have its own loop service by combining the current 311,312,313,314. Terminate the 310 at Sandgate. Remove the 315. Remove the 695. Rework the routes to feed into the heavy rail line. Remove any other random routes in the Redcliffe area. Boost the frequency of the 693,694,696,697 loops (http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/111128-693,694,696,697.pdf ) Redesign the 690 into a proper clockwise/anticlock wise route with a decent service frequency between Sandgate/Redcliffe/Kippa Ring (690CW goes straight to Kippa Ring, Scarbrough, Redcliffe, Woody Point, Clontarf and back to Sandgate while 690CCW goes to Woody Point, Redcliffe, Scarbrough, Kippa Ring and back to Sandgate).

[ozbob]

This bus is currently only hourly  on Weekends. Terrible... So every 2nd train is missed out!

Poor dears, they can get some comfort from the fact that they are not alone with such poor service frequency, the problem for many though it is weekdays not weekends ...

[HappyTrainGuy]

This bus is currently only hourly  on Weekends. Terrible... So every 2nd train is missed out!

Poor dears, they can get some comfort from the fact that they are not alone with such poor service frequency, the problem for many though it is weekdays not weekends ...

Still double the weekend frequency of the 338 

[somebody]

326 also feeds into Sandgate from Bracken Ridge/Taigum/Boondall.

Agreed with Gazza. There needs to be a service north to connect the two regions. Otherwise Shorncliffe to Redcliffe via Northgate..... haha gtfo. Brighton/Sandgate/Shorncliffe should have its own loop service by combining the current 311,312,313,314. Terminate the 310 at Sandgate. Remove the 315. Remove the 695. Rework the routes to feed into the heavy rail line. Remove any other random routes in the Redcliffe area. Boost the frequency of the 693,694,696,697 loops (http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/111128-693,694,696,697.pdf ) Redesign the 690 into a proper clockwise/anticlock wise route with a decent service frequency between Sandgate/Redcliffe/Kippa Ring (690CW goes straight to Kippa Ring, Scarbrough, Redcliffe, Woody Point, Clontarf and back to Sandgate while 690CCW goes to Woody Point, Redcliffe, Scarbrough, Kippa Ring and back to Sandgate).

Why abolish the 695?  Why truncate the 310?

[HappyTrainGuy]

If the 690 is made into a proper Sandgate to Redcliffe via Scarbrough loop route there is no need for the 695 to venture anywhere into the Kippa Ring/Sandgate area when there's 4 buses per hour (30 minute frequency) going between Clontarf-Sandgate combined with the Kippa Ring loop routes that are already each run on a 30 minute frequency in the same area (Mark my words, when the Kippa Ring rail line goes up watch these routes especially if they fix the Redcliffe part so they feed back to the railway station) along with the 695 being slower than a 690 direct to Kippa Ring along Elizabeth Ave instead of hitting up the backstreets. Put up a bus stop the corner of Victoria Ave/Hornibrook Esp and passengers could easily interchange to the 693,694,696,697 to get home or to other areas. The same goes for the far Western side of the route along with the Eastern side.

Sorry, I thought the 310 did the same leg to Brighton as the 690/695 so that should be retained.

[Gazza]

If the 310 was CFN, we could cut back the 306 & 322 to being rail feeders, because they wouldn't be needed to 'cover' Sandgate Rd 
http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/100510-306,322.pdf

[somebody]

Still, I think the Redcliffe Peninsula can justify more than one route crossing the Hornibrook Bridge.  One route can't serve it without being enormously circuitous.  The other option would be requiring passengers to do a double transfer at Sandgate and Clontarf.

If the 310 was CFN, we could cut back the 306 & 322 to being rail feeders, because they wouldn't be needed to 'cover' Sandgate Rd 
http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/100510-306,322.pdf

Yes.  Add the 301 to the routes which could be removed/reviewed.

Be nice to get better CBD stops for the 310 too.  Stop 60 Queen St (f/s Creek)?  What's that?

[#Metro]

I agree with this too Simon 

The 306 and 322 should be cut and terminated at Toombul interchange.
The 310 should be BUZzed and extended to Cultural Centre to become the CFN line for Sandgate Road.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Still, I think the Redcliffe Peninsula can justify more than one route crossing the Hornibrook Bridge.  One route can't serve it without being enormously circuitous.  The other option would be requiring passengers to do a double transfer at Sandgate and Clontarf.

The north east could get a little work done to it but people have to learn to transfer and that they can't have bus routes going everywhere to their destination. Redcliffe is a small area that can easily be run with routes such as a CW/CCW loop routes given its excellent road layout and already available coverage routes. Maybe another Kippa Ring/Margate-Newport/Scarbrough loop via Ashmole/Scarbrough/Duffield roads (Depending on demand) with the 690/691 loop extended along the waterfront. The 695 could be reworked as a Rothwell to Kippa Ring service looping the backstreets with the 680 taking up slack along parts of Scarbrough Road/Anzac Ave.

Not exact but something like.

[somebody]

Even if your two way loop goes in, I still see merit in the 695, but curtailed to Kippa-Ring.  680 covers the Kippa-Ring-Rothwell service.

[#Metro]

Let's keep on topic.

I hate loops. Why can't grid services run on a grid road system which is what redcliffe has?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Nothing wrong with loops if they are used effeciently feeding into local areas, interchanges and different modes of transport.

[SurfRail]

I posted some thoughts on this subject a while back here (with a Google Earth KMZ):

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=8036.0

My take was that the 315 could exist in a modified form around Redcliffe and terminate at Toombul.  The 310 would do what it does now except all services would also go no further south than Toombul.  (It's good enough for the 307, 326 and 327, so why not more services?)

Hornibrook network on the peninsula would have higher frequency on north-south routes and on one east-west corridor (Anzac Ave), with less frequent other east-west routes designed to feed the 2-3 main shopping areas (Kippa-Ring, Margate and Redcliffe).

[#Metro]

Does anyone know if the 315 is an all stops or an express service? Seriously, if it is all stops, why not just make it express by cutting all the stops between the CBD and Toombul except 1 stop in the valley (much like the 250) and make it run express until it gets to Toombul interchange.

[SurfRail]

Does anyone know if the 315 is an all stops or an express service? Seriously, if it is all stops, why not just make it express by cutting all the stops between the CBD and Toombul except 1 stop in the valley (much like the 250) and make it run express until it gets to Toombul interchange.

It's an express (including on the peninsula) and only runs weekdays.  There has been some talk that it will go to a 7-day service soon.

The 310 runs as an all-stopper on weekends, if memory serves.

[somebody]

My take was that the 315 could exist in a modified form around Redcliffe and terminate at Toombul.  The 310 would do what it does now except all services would also go no further south than Toombul.  (It's good enough for the 307, 326 and 327, so why not more services?)

I don't see the point of that at all.  If it's to go beyond North Boondall, why not go all the way to the city?

Do the 307, 326, 327 achieve patronage wise?  I expect not.  Unless they do, why duplicate their mistakes?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Simon, that's the thing about the 326/327 route. They are weird patronage routes for multiple reasons. Mostly because routes that are more reliable are run minutes prior which offer way better interchanges/if you head out to get the planned 326/327 another route going to your destination might appear first. From my observations when at the Station not many people in Geebung tend to get it as the 325/336/337 are run minutes prior/offer better connections to the nearby railway station/RSL/Schools/buses etc. 326 gets its main patronage from the Bracken Ridge tafe and access to the Sandgate area via Taigum/Bracken Ridge. 327 gets its main patronage from people feeding into the Strathpine interchange/shops from Bracken Ridge. I can't say much for the Toombul-Geebung/East Chermside running portion though.

[SurfRail]

My take was that the 315 could exist in a modified form around Redcliffe and terminate at Toombul.  The 310 would do what it does now except all services would also go no further south than Toombul.  (It's good enough for the 307, 326 and 327, so why not more services?)

I don't see the point of that at all.  If it's to go beyond North Boondall, why not go all the way to the city?

Do the 307, 326, 327 achieve patronage wise?  I expect not.  Unless they do, why duplicate their mistakes?

North Boondall is neither an interchange nor a trip generator (same for Virginia while we're at it).  You still need a service down Sandgate Rd and this way you get BUZ frequency on that stretch.  You have other BT services to cover between Toombul and the city (the bits that aren't served by the railway).

[somebody]

Ok, but I'd still remove the 315 sooner than run to Toombul.

[#Metro]

All this discussion about the 315 has made me think. Why does the 315 even exist? 
It is an HOURLY service, so any speed gains made in it's journey is completely obliterated by the fact that you have to wait for an entire hour
before you can catch it. Why bother? Why not send it via Sandgate and terminate it at Sandgate Station, transfer the pax to rail, or cut it at Toombul or even more radically, terminate it at Chermside Shopping Centre after giving people an opportunity to transfer to CBD bound services at Virginia.

Once there is a 15 minute BUZ on Sandgate Road, 315s no longer make sense.

[somebody]

All this discussion about the 315 has made me think. Why does the 315 even exist? 
It is an HOURLY service, so any speed gains made in it's journey is completely obliterated by the fact that you have to wait for an entire hour
before you can catch it. Why bother? Why not send it via Sandgate and terminate it at Sandgate Station, transfer the pax to rail, or cut it at Toombul or even more radically, terminate it at Chermside Shopping Centre after giving people an opportunity to transfer to CBD bound services at Virginia.

Once there is a 15 minute BUZ on Sandgate Road, 315s no longer make sense.

Exactly.  In peak hour it may make sense, but if there is capacity on rail, rail feeders are likely to be faster.

[ozbob]

Media release 16 April 2012

SEQ:Core Frequent Network: Sandgate Road BUZ



RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers proposes that the 310 Sandgate Road bus be upgraded to BUZ standard as part of the roll-out of a larger Core Frequent Network across Brisbane (1,2).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The Core Frequent Network is the minimum basic network of high frequency bus, train and ferry services required to properly connect the CBD with the suburbs, and the suburbs with each other. Rolling out the Core Frequent Network is significantly cheaper than heavy infrastructure upgrades and is rapid to deliver because it requires no new infrastructure. Services on fast arterial roads should be targeted for boosting bus because, outside of dedicated busways, this is where high speed and capacity is available to make public transport very competitive against car travel."

"RAIL Back On Track members propose that the 310 Sandgate bus service, which currently operates at anti-public transport half hourly frequencies during peak hour, and hourly on weekdays and weekends be considered for extension to Cultural Centre and upgraded to BUZ standard (3). As part of this, we also propose the low frequency 306 Nudgee Beach and 322 Chermside bus services be removed from the CBD and terminated at Toombul to feed Toombul Rail station and the proposed 310 Sandgate Road BUZ."

"Although some passengers will have to connect at Toombul, it will result in a much simpler, frequent, cost-efficient, legible and easier-to-remember network that is intuitive to understand. A passenger wanting to go to any address along Sandgate road would simply catch a 310 Sandgate Road BUZ. A city against streamlining and connections is a city also against a simple, efficient and frequent network, as a messy bush of low frequency legacy routes are the direct consequences of failing to review old 'legacy' routes that have long passed their utility (4,5,6)."

"Indeed, it would be helpful to think of the service as an integral part of the arterial road itself. The success of the BUZ 100, which takes a 'no nonsense' route straight down Ipswich Road highlights the utility of this approach."

"Focus on the Core!"

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

References:

1.  Building a Core Frequent Network http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5173.0

2.  Core Frequent Network Discussion Paper -  less is more http://backontrack.org/docs/bus/cfn_v1.pdf

3.   Should 310 Sandgate be added to the CFN? http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=8128.0

4.  San Francisco: sometimes cuts are an improvement http://www.humantransit.org/2009/11/san-francisco-cuts-for-effectiveness.html

5. "Transferring" can be good for you, and good for your city http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

6.   SEQ: Connections reduce waste and inefficiency in bus network http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7594.0

[#Metro]

Exactly.  In peak hour it may make sense, but if there is capacity on rail, rail feeders are likely to be faster.

They could be faster simply because a shorter route could be run more frequently. I'll think more about this.