• Welcome to RAIL - Back On Track Forum.
 

Indooroopilly Interchange - Use Barracks Land?

Started by #Metro, July 28, 2014, 07:39:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

#Metro



Could use the existing bridge / road over the railway line. If this is too congested, perhaps station road could be made into a bus portal, platform underneath Indooroopilly Station and then pop out to a bus terminal / layover space at Lambert Road/Barracks.

Given the high number of buses terminating at this location under a connected network model, a large amount of bus layover space could be provided here.
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

Putting a connection through would certainly improve things but I don't think it is even necessary.

I struggle with why relatively simple solutions aren't considered here by the powers that be.

On the western side, there is already a bus stop adjacent to the southern access to the station which could be spruced up.  Buses can do a loop of Riverview Tce and head back west to the bus interchange at the shops.  This covers buses from the west.

On the eastern side, expand the Lambert Rd cul-de-sac into a bus turnaround and put a few bus stops on it by taking a little of the barracks land.  This covers buses from UQ and St Lucia.

Through-routed buses can just divert to the stop on the eastern side which only adds around 200m to the current trip.  Fitting the Lambert/Clarence intersection signals for bus priority will help ameliorate any impact on journey times.

While the DDA compliant access would be located up the other end of the station complex from both of these stops, this is surely better than just wasting money on a badly designed network just because there is no money for some overcooked interchange.
Ride the G:

James

Quote from: SurfRail on July 28, 2014, 12:05:34 PM
Putting a connection through would certainly improve things but I don't think it is even necessary.

I struggle with why relatively simple solutions aren't considered here by the powers that be.

On the western side, there is already a bus stop adjacent to the southern access to the station which could be spruced up.  Buses can do a loop of Riverview Tce and head back west to the bus interchange at the shops.  This covers buses from the west.

On the eastern side, expand the Lambert Rd cul-de-sac into a bus turnaround and put a few bus stops on it by taking a little of the barracks land.  This covers buses from UQ and St Lucia.

Through-routed buses can just divert to the stop on the eastern side which only adds around 200m to the current trip.  Fitting the Lambert/Clarence intersection signals for bus priority will help ameliorate any impact on journey times.

While the DDA compliant access would be located up the other end of the station complex from both of these stops, this is surely better than just wasting money on a badly designed network just because there is no money for some overcooked interchange.

Buses coming from the west and terminating at Indro are better off going over the bridge and terminating in a layover on the southern side of the Walter Taylor bridge. Especially in peak hour, a bus would take a VERY long time to get across from Coonan St to Riverview Tce, and then turn left again into Station Rd (and then it is on the wrong side for the interchange). It does add a bit on to fuel cost, but probably saved in labour. Riverview Tce is also quite a narrow road as well.

With regards to UQ buses, the status quo is fine as it is, but the signals crossing Clarence Rd on the southern side need to be re-timed to allow faster flow of pedestrians. I have almost missed connections there just because I have spent up to 2-3 minutes waiting for the traffic lights to change (as it was, I just jaywalked in order to catch my 428). The main issue with UQ buses is route/stopping patterns and the Clarence/Swann Rds intersection heading inbound (traffic lights needed).

Of course in the long-term, something like Lapdog's proposal will be needed in order to actually make interchange attractive - and I think this is what he is thinking about - the long-term. This bus link isn't essential, but it will be needed in 5-10 years time when people in the western suburbs realise how amazing BUZ and FUZ everywhere is and we have full buses dumping in to full trains (the Sherwood-bound GCL stop is in no state to deal with the transfer of a full bus, nor is the Toowong-bound GCL stop).
Is it really that hard to run frequent, reliable public transport?

hU0N

The real problem with Indooroopilly is that the benefits are really, really marginal.  Some back of the envelope calculations (using typical weightings) of travel times from Indooroopilly Bus Station to Roma Street Station

BUS
in vehicle time (peak) = 27m x 1.125 = 30.4m      *weighting recognizes that people prefer trains, all else being equal
in vehicle time (off peak) = 20m x 1.125 = 22.5m

TRAIN (minimal changes to station)
bus in vehicle time = 2m x 1.125 = 2.2m
transfer time = 5m x 3.0 = 15m
          *weighting takes account of the disincentive of poor transfer infrastructure and assumes a well timed transfer
train in vehicle time = 12m
TOTAL = 29.2m

TRAIN (with upgraded interchange facilities)
bus in vehicle time = 2m x 1.125 = 2.2m
transfer time = 5m x 1.5 = 7.5m
          *weighting takes account of the transfer not being a  cross platform, synchronised transfer (the only kind that gets a weighting of 1).
train in vehicle time = 12m
TOTAL = 21.7m

The point is that not making expensive changes to the station is a non-starter because it will make the off-peak journey from Moggill seem 13% longer and the peak journey just 2% shorter.  Assuming the differing city bus and train station locations create equal winners and losers, we are talking about pushing more people off transit and into cars in the middle of the day, and having almost no impact on mode share in peak hour.

Making expensive changes to the station is more of a starter, making the off peak journey seem 1% shorter and the peak journey seem 18% shorter.  Again, assuming equal winners and losers, this stands to attract more transit riders in peak hour only and do nothing for the off peak mode share.  18% seems pretty good, and in reality it is, but it may not actually be realisable.  Traffic might mean peak hour feeder buses need to be run more than 5min ahead of the connecting trains.  All of this eats into the benefit.  And when you take it all into account, is the remaining benefit worth the capital cost?

James

Yes, because the frequency of services can be upgraded, meaning less waiting time. Your calculations assume someone is wanting to travel from Indro Shopping Centre to Roma St by bus, which in the off-peak is rather daft to say the least. Peak I would do it, just because Coronation Drive can be horrific.

Let us look at feeding the 433 to the railway line. Trip from Gilruth Rd near Cornhill St, stop 38, Kenmore to Adelaide St Stop 22 (being bold and including the walk from Central). I will include your weighting for argument's sake, with an additional weighting of average waiting time (x2.0).

Current direct-services trip time:
Peak: 15m x 2.0 + 48m x 1.125 = 84m
Off-Peak: 30m x 2.0 + 33m x 1.125 = 97m (rounded)

Feeder bus + train (current arrangement, 15 minute frequency peak, 30 mins off-peak):
Peak:
Trip to station - 7.5m x 2.0 + 22m x 1.125 = 39.75m
Transfer time = 5m x 3.0 = 15m
Train in vehicle time = 15m
Walk to Adelaide St stop 22 = 5m
TOTAL = 75m (saving of 9 minutes)
Off-peak:
Trip to station - 15m x 2.0 + 12m x 1.125 = 44m (rounded)
Transfer time = 5m x 3.0 = 15m
Train in vehicle time = 15m
Walk to Adelaide St stop 22 = 5m
TOTAL = 79m (saving of 15 minutes)

Feeder bus + train (new arrangement, 15 minute frequency peak, 30 mins off-peak):
Peak:
Trip to station - 7.5m x 2.0 + 22m x 1.125 = 39.75m
Transfer time = 5m x 1.5 = 7.5m
Train in vehicle time = 15m
Walk to Adelaide St stop 22 = 5m
TOTAL = 67m (saving of 17 minutes)
Off-peak:
Trip to station - 15m x 2.0 + 12m x 1.125 = 44m (rounded)
Transfer time = 5m x 1.5 = 7.5m
Train in vehicle time = 15m
Walk to Adelaide St stop 22 = 5m
TOTAL = 72m (saving of 22 minutes)

Benefits of Indooroopilly rail-bus transfer are massive, especially when it comes to transport frequency to Indooroopilly. Indooroopilly is a significant activity centre - multiple office complexes, large shopping centre, four schools within walking distance of the complex and UQ about 3kms down the road.

There is no more than a 12 minute wait for trains at Indro in peak, often better thanks to 6-minute frequency in the AM peak (and I'm sure as Brisbane develops, this will expand to the PM 'core' peak as well). The only people disadvantaged are people who currently walk-up to the 444 and ones who drive to nearby 444 stops and would not be able to 'walk-up' to a network like the one referenced in my signature, as they would face a transfer on identical frequency (aside from late at night).

Pax of the 425, 433, 430, 445 and 45x routes would seriously benefit from truncation at Indro thanks to the freed up route-km allowing for an increase (sometimes a doubling in) frequency. Right now, the bus network is a dog's breakfast out this way. Pax can wait over half an hour for a service in peak-hour...
Is it really that hard to run frequent, reliable public transport?

hU0N

You are right, changing frequency should be factored into the equation.  And I think you are on the money with your weighting for wait times (it is similar what I have read in various places).  But I think you should disentangle the benefit from the improved frequency and the benefit from transferring.

Based on your numbers:

TRANSFER (Current Situation)
PEAK
15m improvement due to timetabling change
6m worsening due to  bus/rail transfer
OFF PEAK
30m improvement due to timetabling change
12m worsening due to bus/rail transfer

TRANSFER (Improved Situation)
PEAK
15m improvement due to timetabling change
2m improvement due to  bus/rail transfer
OFF PEAK
30m improvement due to timetabling change
8m worsening due to bus/rail transfer

Of course, the 433 has absolutely the worst frequency of any service through Indooroopilly.  Most routes feature 30m off peak frequencies and 10m peak frequencies.

For these routes, the improvement (assuming you double the existing frequency at all times) looks like this:

TRANSFER (Current Situation)
PEAK
5m improvement due to timetabling change
6m worsening due to  bus/rail transfer
OFF PEAK
15m improvement due to timetabling change
12m worsening due to bus/rail transfer

TRANSFER (Improved Situation)
PEAK
5m improvement due to timetabling change
2m improvement due to  bus/rail transfer
OFF PEAK
15m improvement due to timetabling change
8m worsening due to bus/rail transfer

Once again you come back to the conclusion that, without a major station upgrade to improve the transfer experience, feederization simply doesn't make sense (except for the route 433, in which case the entire benefit is derived from the frequency increase and not from the transfer).

With a major station upgrade, perhaps.  But only if the upgrade was major.  Like space for 15 buses at a time major.  All with relatively straightforward, covered access to the platforms, because we are talking about 7m time savings at the most, against a transfer weighting that varies by up to 5m depending on the quality of the transfer.

The problem for me is that the benefit is still mostly bound up in the timetable change, and the question that still needs to be answered is, how much extra frequency on various routes could you buy for the cost of a major station upgrade?  And would that be enough?

James

No, the problem exists all over the western suburbs. Lets just look north of the river for now - Centenary will be adequately covered by a Centenary BUZ and a feeder to Indro to cover 'West' Jindalee (for those unable to walk to the frequent) such that we can consider Centenary buses independent from the rest of the 4xx network west of Indooroopilly.

430 is hourly. 435 is hourly. 445 is hourly. 425 is half-hourly, but the route is god-awful in terms of unreliable (seriously, OTP for this route is shameful). 428 is hourly west of Indro. 432 is hourly west of Indro, with last inbound service at 3pm or something crazy like that. The weekend is even more fun. 425 is hourly. 428 (west of Indro), hourly. 430 is hourly. 432 doesn't exist. 433 is hourly. 435 is hourly, 2-hourly on Sundays. 445 is hourly and doesn't exist on Sundays. No wonder the automobile is the vehicle of choice for those moving around the western suburbs on weekends!

Please point me to these fictitious 'half-hourly off-peak and 10-minute peak' frequencies. Peak-hour rockets may combine on some corridors to give a 15-minute service (e.g. 425/P426), but aside from that, the only corridor with 10-minute peak (or better) frequency is the 444 corridor and the Indro - UQ corridor (very few individual stops get consistent 10-minute headways though thanks to the express mess which exists along this corridor).

Right now, the two big issues with Indooroopilly buses are frequency and reliability. In the reliability aspect, the 425 is a particularly bad route. I have friends of mine who immediately seize up into a fit of rage whenever I say the number '425' or utter the words 'Chapel Hill buses'.

The reason why anybody should consider feederisation of any route should be in order to increase frequency on the route, and thus attract more people to travel on PT (unless the route shouldn't be increased in frequency due to low demand - 435 comes to mind due to duplication down Moggill Rd with the 444 and Brookfield being so isolated/anti-PT development). I won't delve further into this as I've already detailed it in my bus review, but I feel we have a supply issue rather than a demand issue for public transport in the area.
Is it really that hard to run frequent, reliable public transport?

#Metro

#7
I think this is the "modellers objection" to interchanging. http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

Perhaps it would always be faster if everyone got a rocket direct from their door (like me, ha ha), but the reality is we cannot afford that. This is what the whole affordability crisis we are having at the moment is all about.

This is the type of stop infrastructure at Huntingdale station, a high frequency feeder bus (every 4-5 minutes) that it very well loaded transferring to rail (every 15 minutes, possibly upgraded now to 10 minutes). It is not a sophisticated interchange at all - there are bus shelters, you walk to a traffic light, wait, walk across and down into a subway passage and then up to the platforms. Very well used, no PID screens, no huge interchange, nothing. And it works.

https://www.google.com.au/maps?q=Huntingdale,+Oakleigh,+Victoria&hl=en&ll=-37.911611,145.10417&spn=0.001414,0.002671&sll=-32.07169,115.967165&sspn=0.097169,0.170975&oq=Huntingdale,+victor&t=h&hnear=Huntingdale,+Oakleigh+Victoria+3166&z=19&layer=c&cbll=-37.911611,145.10417&panoid=Vzr9vUc9Jflyl2g1F46ZCg&cbp=12,305.85,,0,6.23

For Indooroopilly, I think that money should be set aside for 15 minute trains on the Richlands line. This will not cost much, especially if DOO is done as well. This will permit Ipswich trains to run express ALL DAY stopping only at Indooroopilly, and an extremely rapid trip directly into the CBD. This would permit half-hourly buses to be timed with the express trains.

There is often a view that integration is just two services physically connecting - but TIMETABLE integration is important too. By planning changes to the rail network, complimentary changes to the bus network can also be made that enhance the operation of both.

Similar situation with route 402 for example...

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

hU0N

"There is considerable documentation behind the addition of this kind of factor, but the unpleasantness of the connection experience depends on many details of how the connection works.  If two buses or trains arrive on opposite sides of a platform, facing one another five meters apart, with their doors open at the same time, walking out of one and into the other is a pretty low level of inconvenience for most passengers.  If the connection involves getting off a bus, crossing a busy street, and waiting for another bus not knowing when it will arrive, the inconvenience is much greater. So the configuration of the connection matters.  Transfer penalties are based on a crude averaging of many different types of connection  experience, so good interchanges will reduce these penalties." - Jarrett Walker

His point is that transfer penalties are a very real phenomena, supported by a lot of documentary evidence, but that they are highly variable on the quality of the interchange. The modellers objection lies in making blanket statements about transfer penalties that don't account for the quality of the interchange. Statements like, "the transfer penalty is always 10min." Or statements like, "transfer penalties don't exist, it's just a modellers objection http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html"

The point is that the benefit of transferring accumulates slowly as you are on the train, while all the dis-benefit is incurred at once, at the point of transfer. The closer you move the transfer point to the ultimate destination, the less time you have on the train and the less benefit you accumulate. With only a small accumulated benefit, it's absolutely essential that the tranfer penalty be minimised, by maximising the quality of the experience.

Comparisons to stations like huntington really aren't particularly instructive because this station is around 4 times further from the its ultimate destination. This means four times longer on the train accumulating four times the benefits. In this context a moderately high transfer penalty might still only be a fraction of the benefit and therefore have limited impact on the performance of the transfer.

I'm not saying that transfers are bad, or that all interchanges need to be multi million dollar extravaganzas. Simply that the closer you get to your destination, the less you will tolerate an inconvenient transfer. And Indooroopilly is perilously close to being too near the ultimate destination.

Consider Toowong. The buses stop on the station overbridge and passengers can cross a single traffic light to enter the station where trains will get them to the city before the bus would have. But almost nobody does this. Why?

SurfRail

These arguments are directly analogous to saying that buses should compete with the G: because a transfer at Broadbeach South or Southport involves a time penalty.  The argument has been basically ignored down our way, we just got on with it.  Why is Brisbane so precious?

There is no evidence patronage has been adversely affected so far - in particular, the interchanges at Southport, Cypress Avenue and GCUH/Griffith Uni are far from cross-platform.  I expect both bus and tram patronage will climb in an absolute sense due to the frequency improvements which the G: has enabled for both systems, and not just because of "double counting".

If you terminate the bus at Toowong or Indooroopilly, people will make the interchange because they have to.  The alternative is to sit in congestion on Coronation Drive or Milton Road and then find a park, which virtually nobody is in a position to do in an economic way unless they are businesspeople or public servants with parking licences attached to the lease of whatever premises they work in.  Active transport will remain marginal and is still slower over the distances we are talking.  Even if it causes more car pooling that is fine because it at least doubles the efficiency of the vehicle.

The frequency improvements to the abysmal western suburbs bus network that this can enable would more than offset those in a flap about having to swap vehicles.  Even if it equals out the network is running more efficiently with a lot less dead-heading and better on-time running.

Transfer penalties are a real phenomenon, but so are plenty of other things which probably have a negligible effect on patronage like the padding of the seats on board the trains.  (Perth's are ridiculously hard and uncomfortable for the record.)
Ride the G:

techblitz

Quotethis is the type of stop infrastructure at Huntingdale station, a high frequency feeder bus (every 4-5 minutes) that it very well loaded transferring to rail (every 15 minutes, possibly upgraded now to 10 minutes). It is not a sophisticated interchange at all - there are bus shelters, you walk to a traffic light, wait, walk across and down into a subway passage and then up to the platforms. Very well used, no PID screens, no huge interchange, nothing. And it works.
^
Geez you like to pick some lame stations for examples LD   ::)

huntingdale takes the cake as one of the most irritating cluster*>?& interchanges in melbourne.Disliked by so many students and faculty (who have no other option) its not funny 

https://www.facebook.com/huntingdalecampaign

http://www.monashweekly.com.au/story/1459985/andrews-demands-huntingdale-station-action/?cs=2239

http://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/gravel-carpark-at-huntingdale-railway-station-overlooked-in-redevelopment-proposal

http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/blogs/third-degree/still-missing-the-bus-20110314-1bud4.html

and this >>>>> where the university is cheesed off so much with it...they went so far as to cost thier own upgrades of the station.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/east/upgrade-to-huntingdale-railway-station-bus-interchange-a-priority-say-monash-university-and-council/story-fngnvlxu-1226907549167

yea it works alright..but at what expense...

#Metro

Quotehuntingdale takes the cake as one of the most irritating cluster*>?& interchanges in melbourne.
Disliked by so many students and faculty (who have no other option) its not funny 

Huntingdale station is perfectly functional, perhaps the only issue there is the stairs from the subway which is not really DDA.
The lighting could be upgraded, for some reason they use this dim amber light rather than white lights.

I've done the walk myself, and waited at those exact shelters and used that bus service.
The crowds are generally short lived, just like the crowds that used to pile up in Adelaide Street when Brisbane Transport used to run 412s and 407 UQ Rockets. The frequency is extremely high so crowds clear.

It is one of the highest used buses in all of Melbourne and huge numbers of people make the connection.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

#Metro

#12
QuoteComparisons to stations like huntington really aren't particularly instructive because this station is around 4 times further from the its ultimate destination. This means four times longer on the train accumulating four times the benefits. In this context a moderately high transfer penalty might still only be a fraction of the benefit and therefore have limited impact on the performance of the transfer.

I'm not saying that transfers are bad, or that all interchanges need to be multi million dollar extravaganzas. Simply that the closer you get to your destination, the less you will tolerate an inconvenient transfer. And Indooroopilly is perilously close to being too near the ultimate destination.

I can present evidence from actual networks (precedents) that may convince people to reconsider their position.

I can show examples in Vancouver, Canada where the bus is within 3km of the CBD and it runs cross-city, connecting to a train station. I can also show near-side termination within Stockholm of buses and light rail, where pax are made to change within stones throw of the CBD, in a radial arrangement, (i.e. non-cross town).

STOCKHOLM EXAMPLE (this is an older map, newer map cannot find)
Note the use of near side temination of LRT lines L27, L28 and L29 at Techniska Hogskolan. There's also LRT termination at Ropstein (L21) and Slussen (L24) Note how close they are to Central.


http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9558/stockholmrailmap.jpg

VANCOUVER EXAMPLE

Bus 84, Vancouver, the CBD is at the top.



Bus 41, Vancouver


Bus 9, Vancouver,



Both Stockholm and Vancouver have excellent public transport and nobody considers these transfers to be irrational. The fact that Stockholm has built Light Rail and done this would also suggest that high volumes of people are being changed at these points. There is a major bus terminal underneath Slussen station as well where buses are terminated.

I also refer to SurfRail's point re: Gold Coast Light Rail. If planners are hesitant, fine, do experiments by introducing small changes to a handful of routes and then observe.

In any case, I think a simple and functional place to change at Indooroopilly (temporary) could be designed, and layover space could be provided for large numbers of terminating buses. As funds become available a larger interchange could be built.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

techblitz

huntingdale station needs upgrading...period and looks like it will happen soon all going well...the car parking stories are horrendous...

just on transferring.....the current indro setup is virtually no different than the current toombul setup..bar number of buses obviously.....plenty of people walk from toombul over the rd to make the 590 connection and vice versa...people will transfer regardless of the situation...no doubt.....

James

Quote from: techblitz on August 07, 2014, 11:08:56 AM
huntingdale station needs upgrading...period and looks like it will happen soon all going well...the car parking stories are horrendous...

just on transferring.....the current indro setup is virtually no different than the current toombul setup..bar number of buses obviously.....plenty of people walk from toombul over the rd to make the 590 connection and vice versa...people will transfer regardless of the situation...no doubt.....

The Indro set-up, depending on where you choose to stop/terminate the buses, is actually better than Toombul. Sandgate Rd has no overpass/underpass, instead you have to cross a 6-lane road.

At Indro, if you use the current GCL/105 stops near the station, for inbound passengers all they need to do is go down one set of stairs, walk 50m and then up another set of stairs. Outbound pax will find it a little more difficult/need to walk a bit further. To use the current 428 etc. stop requires more walking - outbound (to Indro) only requires crossing at a zebra crossing, and to UQ requires crossing a 2-lane road. However, in both cases the UQ buses stops are further away than GCL/105 stops.

Only inbound 428 passengers face having to cross a road. DDA compliance may be a small issue with the Indooroopilly lifts in the wrong spot (where they've put the DDA concourse is, to be honest, stupid).

Quote from: hU0N on August 07, 2014, 08:47:11 AMI'm not saying that transfers are bad, or that all interchanges need to be multi million dollar extravaganzas. Simply that the closer you get to your destination, the less you will tolerate an inconvenient transfer. And Indooroopilly is perilously close to being too near the ultimate destination.

Consider Toowong. The buses stop on the station overbridge and passengers can cross a single traffic light to enter the station where trains will get them to the city before the bus would have. But almost nobody does this. Why?

Right now I'd be happy to terminate my local route (411) at Toowong in exchange for a frequency increase, because right now the hourly Sunday frequency makes me explode into fits of rage.

I had a large rant here about poor connections, but I will abbreviate it into the core points:
1. There's no frequency improvement from going from bus to rail (or vice versa) at Toowong, so the majority don't bother with the connection. By the time they've caught the train into the CBD, there isn't a huge benefit from truncation without frequency improvement at Toowong.
2. 412 connects very poorly with the railway line (mind you, a reasonable number continue to make this connection despite the huge transfer penalty).
3. People tend to cling to their single-seat trip. It isn't as bad as the Redlands (as STB has mentioned there are "bus friends groups" and everything there, enough to make you vomit), but it is amazing how there are 'regulars' on services who have been catching the same bus for the last 10 years.

I'm sure if you doubled the frequency of the 411 and 417 by terminating the route at Toowong, a lot more people would use these bus routes and a lot more people would be choosing public transport to not only access the CBD, but access Toowong as well.

Same thing with the 4xx series at Indro. We seem to have this mentality that EVERYBODY wants to go to the City. With paid parking probably coming to Indooroopilly in a few years, soon Indro will be a bus destination in its own right. Truncation at Indooroopilly doubles frequency for these people for no additional cost. In fact, I would argue you can hit CBD-bound pax with more time penalties than those bound for local/regional PRACs due to the extortionate price of parking in the CBD.

I won't delve further in to things, but terminating routes at Indro and increasing frequency - its a no-brainer.
Is it really that hard to run frequent, reliable public transport?

#Metro

Quote
Same thing with the 4xx series at Indro. We seem to have this mentality that EVERYBODY wants to go to the City. With paid parking probably coming to Indooroopilly in a few years, soon Indro will be a bus destination in its own right. Truncation at Indooroopilly doubles frequency for these people for no additional cost. In fact, I would argue you can hit CBD-bound pax with more time penalties than those bound for local/regional PRACs due to the extortionate price of parking in the CBD.

I would suggest complimentary changes to the rail network at the time of bus network reorganisation (i.e. Ipswich trains declared all day express Indro-Roma St, 30 minute cycle buses timed to arrive just before these depart) and 15 minute frequency all to Springfield.
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

Just how feasible would it be to get 15 minute Springfield Central services now?  Patronage would be reasonably good so I'm not convinced splitting up 6-car sets is the answer here, although it certain seems to be on other bits of the network and to good effect (CEP extras etc).
Ride the G:

aldonius

In conjunction with IPS-CAB expresses and the opening of Kippa-Ring, but no later than the conclusion of the NGR rollout.

James

Quote from: Lapdog Transit on August 07, 2014, 15:32:36 PMI would suggest complimentary changes to the rail network at the time of bus network reorganisation (i.e. Ipswich trains declared all day express Indro-Roma St, 30 minute cycle buses timed to arrive just before these depart) and 15 minute frequency all to Springfield.

That'd be nice, but really it is not needed. The frequency already exists on the 444 when the railway line is not frequent (i.e. between 6am and 10am on Sundays), and at all other times frequency exists on both the 444 and the inner western railway line.

You can terminate all buses but those going to the Centenary and the 444 at Indro tomorrow, and I don't think we'd even see capacity issues on the buses in peak hour. There is that much air going down Moggill Rd at this point, it is horrendous. The pax of sardine cans like the 130 BUZ and 169 would have fits if they saw services in the middle of peak with such low loadings.

Case in point, a 446 ride I once went on in Friday PM peak. 2 pax on board... Yep, 2 pax on a peak hour rocket....
Is it really that hard to run frequent, reliable public transport?

 
🡱 🡳