BT draft network planning areas and hidden frequent corridors

[City Designer]

Inspired by the Auckland bus network review and Rail Back On Tracks' Key Interchange Points I have broken the Brisbane Transport network into network planning areas.

The Brisbane Transport network is broken into 15 network planning areas allowing for changes to be made progressively.

The network planning areas (NPAs) are:

• NPA1.1 Acacia Ridge—Moorooka (route numbers s00-s29)
• NPA1.2 Calamvale—Sunnybank (route numbers s30-s69)
• NPA1.3 Holland Park—Mount Gravatt (route numbers s70-s89)
• NPA1.4 City—Woolloongabba (route numbers c60-c99)
• NPA2.1 Carindale—Coorparoo (route numbers e00-e19)
• NPA2.2 Wakerley—Wynnum (route numbers e20-e29)
• NPA2.3 Morningside—Murrarie (route numbers e30-e39)
• NPA3.1 Eagle Farm—Nudgee (route numbers n00-n09)
• NPA3.2 Bracken Ridge—Sandgate (route numbers n10-n29)
• NPA3.3 Albany Creek—Aspley (route numbers n30-n49)
• NPA3.4 Mitchelton—Wavell Heights (route numbers n50-n69)
• NPA3.5 Grange—The Gap (route numbers n70-n89)
• NPA4.1 St Lucia—Toowong (route numbers w00-w19)
• NPA4.2 Kenmore—Moggill ( route numbersw20-w44)
• NPA4.3 Centenary—Richlands (route numbers w45-w69)

Planning route numbers have a prefix to identify region, which will be replaced with proper route numbers in the final network. These are:

• c Brisbane Central
• e Brisbane East
• n Brisbane North
• s Brisbane South
• w Brisbane West

In addition to network planning areas there are 71 Key Interchange Points (KIPs) across the city. Bus and rail interchange points are selected based on ease of transfer between bus and train services without assistance. There are some exceptions such as Boondall station, Doomben station, and Morningside station, which are marked as assisted stations. Stations marked as assisted do not provide independent access.

A principle of the KIP network is that bus and train transfers are not forced at assisted locations. This means feeder buses do not operate into Boondall, Doomben or Morningside station, however, bus services can connect with rail services and bus routes can terminate at these locations provided that they are accessible to the rest of the network.

Update 1: I have added 12 additional key interchange points (59 to 71) and various map notes. I have also added the high frequency train services.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1N3MVxcFWZvSFAtWIx_Vn8ravscU&usp=sharing

Update 2: Revised network planning areas (16 in total) closer aligned to service corridors.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fzhPA9Nwadg199Ze26cJZ0yizBY&usp=sharing

Update 3: I have also prepared a high frequency bus corridor map showing timed high frequency bus services and hidden frequent corridors.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Z4p67rGmO7ZKW6fnrWhhs0BxRZs&usp=sharing

[#Metro]

A principle of the KIP network is that bus and train transfers are not forced at assisted locations. This means feeder buses do not operate into Boondall, Doomben or Morningside station, however, bus services can connect with rail services and bus routes can terminate at these locations provided that they are accessible to the rest of the network.

Can you elaborate on this? What's the issue at Morningside?

[City Designer]

Can you elaborate on this? What's the issue at Morningside?

Morningside station does not provide independent access as it has steep ramps.

Same with Boondall and Doomben. At the moment they provide bus and train connections but do not provide independent access.

Therefore, I am of the view that stations that do not provide independent access should not be used as forced transfers as it is form of discrimination.

[City Designer]

Why not have the Beenleigh line have high frequency service upto Kuraby station instead of Coopers Plains?

That's not the point of the proposal. The proposal was bus network planning areas. Mapping of the high frequency rail network is based on the current situation, not a fantasy network.

[aldonius]

I like the idea and especially the type of process you're trying to undertake.

I'm not 100% convinced about how you've drawn the boundaries (my intuitive-approach would be to identify primary corridors and then expand out their catchment areas). I hope to see what you come up with next!

[City Designer]

I agree that the network planning area boundaries are not optimal. It was a case of trying to finish something to demonstrate the idea. The eastern suburbs were quite intuitive but the northern and southern suburbs were difficult to break into service areas.

The main idea was to demonstrate network reform in smaller chunks and to highlight the existing accessible bus, train, and ferry stops.

I am also working on a high frequency bus corridor map, however, it is so convoluted that I have made mistakes even on my own local bus routes.

[City Designer]

I have created a version 2 of the map with revised NPA boundaries with areas and added the CityCat. I will progressively improve KIP descriptions.

The revised network planning areas are:

• NPA1.1 Acacia Ridge—Moorooka
• NPA1.2 Calamvale—Sunnybank
• NPA1.3 Holland Park—Mount Gravatt
• NPA1.4 City—Woolloongabba
• NPA2.1 Carindale—Coorparoo
• NPA2.2 Wakerley—Wynnum
• NPA2.3 Morningside—Murrarie
• NPA3.1 Eagle Farm—Nudgee
• NPA3.2 Geebung—Sandgate
• NPA3.3 Albany Creek—Aspley
• NPA3.4 Mitchelton—Stafford
• NPA3.5 Ashgrove—Grange
• NPA4.1 St Lucia—Toowong
• NPA4.2 Kenmore—Moggill
• NPA4.3 Centenary—Corinda
• NPA4.4 Forest Lake—Richlands

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fzhPA9Nwadg199Ze26cJZ0yizBY&usp=sharing

[City Designer]

I've now done a high frequency bus network map.

The most interesting part of the map is the hidden frequent corridors, which have at least 4 buses per hour but are not timetabled to provide a high frequency service.

The City is a mess as it is really hard to map.

Where a corridor has a timed high frequency service (for example the 444 on Moggill Road) I have only mapped the hidden frequent corridor where it has at least 4 additional buses per hour.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Z4p67rGmO7ZKW6fnrWhhs0BxRZs&usp=sharing

The purpose of identifying the hidden frequent corridors is to find opportunities for high frequency bus services without using additional resources.

[James]

The 428 only has 1bph past Indro into Chapel Hill off-peak (2bph in peak) and this is served via a one-way loop, so I wouldn't count the Burbong St corridor as a hidden high-frequency corridor.

I wouldn't count 453/454 as HF as they don't serve any two common stops aside from Mt Ommaney, which is the 453 terminus anyway - by the time you've snaked through suburbia, you'd have been better off using the 454 anyway. Probably better to highlight the uneven 4bph the 454/460 provide.

It is also worth noting that the 428/432 combine to give high frequency between "two points that matter" (i.e. from Indro to UQ and return) - departing/arriving every 15 minutes from Indro, and slightly unevenly from UQ due to the express running of the 432. For anybody who lives on the corridor though, the 432 is useless as it runs express between Gailey Fiveways and UQ (stopping only at Ironside).

[City Designer]

The hidden frequent corridors don't mean the service is actually usable. Hence why the Gateway Bridge is a hidden frequent corridor.

Note the buses per hour statistic on the red corridors is only the high frequency services.

There is plenty of inconsistency in the map as a result of having a convoluted network.

The point is to highlight where buses are already running frequently so that the corridors can be rationalised and made useful.

Where a corridor has a frequent service but it is not useful that helps justify reform.

The network planning areas and corridor maps are intended to help with incremental changes to the network.

[#Metro]

Sadly, the maps shows that the network is fragmented and pretty much illegible.

It makes absolutely no sense why BCC clings to this hi-waste mode of operation (no-transfer principle) but then wants to push Quack Metro (where everyone will have forced interchange next to the CBD).

The mind boggles. What is the purpose? Is there a purpose? Or are they just bent on having a demolition derby and wrecking the joint to cause maximum damage?

What are they trying to prove?

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

1st June 2016

More evidence of the Brisbane Bus network failure

Good Morning,

As a contribution to improving Brisbane's failing bus network, a RAIL Back On Track Member has taken the time to come up with a broad proposal to form network planning areas for Brisbane to allow changes to be made incrementally.

See > BT draft network planning areas and hidden frequent corridors http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=12265.0

As part of this proposal, a high frequency bus map has been drawn up of the existing network.  It is well known that Brisbane's bus network is difficult to map because it so fragmented and disorganised.

See > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Z4p67rGmO7ZKW6fnrWhhs0BxRZs&usp=sharing

The purpose of identifying the hidden frequent corridors is to find opportunities for high frequency bus services without using additional resources.

The hidden frequent corridors don't mean the service is actually usable. Hence why the Gateway Bridge is a hidden frequent corridor.
Note the buses per hour statistic on the red corridors is only the high frequency services.
There is plenty of inconsistency in the map as a result of having a convoluted network.
The point is to highlight where buses are already running frequently so that the corridors can be rationalised and made useful.
Where a corridor has a frequent service but it is not useful that helps justify reform.
The network planning areas and corridor maps are intended to help with how incremental changes to the network could be done
What the maps do confirm though, they show very clearly that the network is fragmented and pretty much illegible and shambolic.

It makes absolutely no sense why BCC clings to this hi-waste mode of operation (no-transfer principle) but then wants to push a toy ' Metro  ' where everyone will have forced interchange next to the CBD.

The mind boggles. What is the purpose? Is there a purpose? Or are they just bent on having a demolition derby and wrecking the joint to cause maximum damage?

What is BCC  trying to prove?

Here is more concrete evidence why public transport network control must be removed from BCC.  They are driving Brisbane into transport failure.

Best wishes
Robert

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

[City Designer]

I have now incrementally improved the hidden frequent corridors map and added a bus terminuses map for the City.

The bus terminuses map is intended to show where you can terminate a bus without having to through route it.

Adelaide Street and King George Square busway station are not really suitable for terminating buses as there is limited turnaround or layover capacity.

One of the limitations of running a lot of bus routes through King George Square busway station is that the buses have to terminate somewhere else. This is why King George Square services generally continue into the Cultural Centre (causing busway congestion) or Woolloongabba. It may be possible to terminate King George Square busway station services outside Treasury Casino doing a series of left turns into William Street, Elizabeth Street, George Street, Adelaide Street, and North Quay to avoid conflicting with other traffic movements.

One of the ways to reduce bus congestion on the Victoria Bridge is to terminate northern buses in the city at underutilised locations such as North Quay, and Treasury Casino and direct more southern buses via the Captain Cook Bridge.

[City Designer]

I have now done a refined high frequency network for the south eastern and eastern suburbs.

With a reallocation of duplicated resources and rationalisation of corridors the south eastern and eastern suburbs now have nine high frequency bus services up from seven (111, 160, 180, 200, 204, 209, 222).

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1P5N8o8TOsS_e6GYbsgPKv2f7lv4&usp=sharing

The principles were to not remove any existing high frequency corridors and find opportunities to upgrade existing corridors to high frequency by removing duplication.

I wanted to build on the RBOT network but have a more even spread of high frequency services.

This was so that local services can be retained and improved to have better coverage.

I have retained the all stops and limited stops pattern on Old Cleveland Road but reduced the number of buses per hour from 16 to 8.

The added high frequency corridors on Winstanley Street (e02) and Stanley Road (e10) go to UQ Lakes instead of the City with the tangible benefit of a substantial service upgrade to compensate for the transfer.

The high frequency network for the south eastern and eastern suburbs is:

• s11—Eight Mile Plains to City all stops via South Busway (111, 160)
• s75—Garden City to City all stops via Logan Road (174, 175)
• s80—Garden City to City limited stops via Mansfield (170, 180)
• e02—Carindale to UQ Lakes all stops via Winstanley Street (202, 204)
• e04—Carindale to City Gardens all stops via Deshon Street (200, 204)
• e10—Carindale to UQ Lakes all stops via Stanley Road (210, 212)
• e22—Carindale Heights to City limited stops via Old Cleveland Road (200, 222)
• e30—Bulimba to City all stops via Wynnum Road (230)
• e39—Garden City to Toombul limited stops via Gateway Bridge (590, 598/599)

The service types in the new network are:

• all stops—stops at every stop on the corridor
• limited stops—all-day service operating major stops along the line with more even spacing
• express—generally peak only services operating non-stop for part(s) of the line

I haven't depicted local services or peak services yet.

[City Designer]

I have now done a refined high frequency network for the southern and south western suburbs.

With a reallocation of duplicated resources there are now nine high frequency services up from five (100, 120, 130, 140, 150).

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XvNZ71t732yFHVruX26wdlPxdxA&usp=sharing

The high frequency network for the southern and south western suburbs is:

• s00—Forest Lake to City limited stops via Moorooka (100)
• s20—Garden City to City limited stops via Nathan Campus (120)
• s24—Coopers Plains to Griffith University Mt Gravatt campus all stops via Nathan Campus (124, 125, 135, 145, 155)
• s25—Coopers Plains to UQ Lakes all stops via Moorooka (117, 124, 125)
• s30—Drewvale to City limited stops via Sunnybank (130)
• s40—Browns Plains to City limited stops via Sunnybank (140, 150)
• s50—Browns Plains to City limited stops via Runcorn (140, 150)
• w50—Riverhills to City limited stops via Indooroopilly (450, 453, 454, 460)
• w60—Heathwood to Mount Ommaney all stops via Richlands (100, 101, 460)

I haven't depicted local or peak services yet.

[urbanplanr]

Sadly, the maps shows that the network is fragmented and pretty much illegible.

It makes absolutely no sense why BCC clings to this hi-waste mode of operation (no-transfer principle) but then wants to push Quack Metro (where everyone will have forced interchange next to the CBD).

The mind boggles. What is the purpose? Is there a purpose? Or are they just bent on having a demolition derby and wrecking the joint to cause maximum damage?

What are they trying to prove?

Exactly. What's the point of travelling on a bus practically to the CBD fringe to then get on a half-arsed rubber tyre metro if there will be congestion as a result of all buses terminating there. It's just shifting the capacity issue from stations like Cultural onto Wollongabba and Herston. It's simply a matter of implementing suburban interchanges at the nearest busway/heavy rail station which will spread the load across a wider network and avoid any congestion/capacity issues.

Not sure why BCC/TransLink are so afraid of going down this path? There will always be demand for PT and sure people may complain initially but it's a matter of changing perception for the benefit of PT users in the long term. PT users won't know the benefit of this approach until it's been implemented.