Route 199 Bowen Hills and 60 Hamilton Portside CityGlider (CONCEPT)

[#Metro]

<foam><concept>

Route 199 Bowen Hills and 60 Hamilton Portside CityGlider (CONCEPT)

Hello RBOT members,

I understand that Brisbane City Council is currently spending almost $100K on working out whether a Gold CityGlider is financially viable.
Here, I would like to explore an alternative service concept (one of no doubt many).

Concept
- Rather than create another CityGlider, how about extending the existing Blue CityGlider to Portside?
- Extend Route 199 to Bowen Hills rail station and terminate
- Construct a bus stop, turnaround and layover at Bowen Hills station.

Pros:
- BlueCityGlider services already run along Kingsford-Smith Drive (in out of service mode)
as these buses are housed at the BCC Eagle Farm Bus Depot. This scenario would significantly reduce
empty running, and is therefore cost-effective.

- Given the above, a minimal number of new buses would be required; possibly none.

- No need to invent yet another CityGlider that duplicates all other bus services once it drives
into the Valley. Another tick for cost-effectiveness.

- Route 199 Can be extended to cover the two stops released from the current Blue CityGlider,
and a new connection made at Bowen Hills

- Bowen Hills connects to every other rail destination in the entire QR network. Currently there is a disconnect
between this key train station and the suburbs of Newstead, Tenneriffe and New Farm.

- The new connection would allow dual direction commuting. Passengers for the CBD could catch the service
in any direction and end up at the CBD.

Cons:
- Psychological loss-aversion reactions as two stops are affected, these being key stops
- People from Bulimba affected (alternatives: they could stay on the CityCat, or BCC could use the funds set aside for a Gold
CityGlider to fund the RBOT 230 BulimbaGlider instead).

- Construction at Bowen Hills required (e.g. roundabout, layover and traffic lights). Precedent: When the Blue CityGlider was first launched, BCC spent $1.6 million to resume land to to create a roundabout for the bus to turn in front of West End Ferry terminal. See here: Brisbane buses get $1.6m turning circle https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-buses-get-16m-turning-circle-20100309-pvq7.html

What are your thoughts?

Portside Blue CityGlider Terminus (CLICK image to enlarge)



Route 199 Bowen Hills extension (CLICK image to enlarge)

[techblitz]

I say keep the blue glider as is......new gold city glider should be diverted to commercial rd - kent - james st then back onto ann st.
At this point it seems the most logical path.....given the still massive medium density residential development.
If people don't like that diversion....stiff.....they can catch the ferry to tennerife and get the blue glider 

[#Metro]

BCC was considering light rail down James St in 2007. James St would support a BUZ but that's a separate proposal out of scope.

What I do like is that Newstead residents can get easy rail access at Bowen Hills. That is a really cool aspect of this concept.

[Gazza]

I don't really support changing the blue glider because sending people the long way around New farm on the 199 will reduce patronage.

One solution could be to just reduce the frequency on the blue glider and then interline with the gold.
The Newstead Valley corridor probably warrants 7.5 min frequency anyway, and the length of duplicate section is not really long enough to worry about.

[#Metro]

I don't really support changing the blue glider because sending people the long way around New farm on the 199 will reduce patronage.

Could they just catch the bus to Bowen Hills and jump on a train? The connection would not even need to be timed as there is always a train coming soon at Bowen Hills.

- Bowen Hills
- Valley
- City
- Roma St

Seems pretty direct to me. Passengers would also avoid any traffic congestion in the Valley and multiple traffic lights as well.

Coming to think of it, perhaps the bus interchange for Bowen Hills could be larger. This would allow other Northside buses/milk run services in the future to terminate at this location.

[techblitz]

They still have to walk from central station once they get to the city....after doing a transfer at bowen hills.....where platforms can get pretty crowded as is......with it being the main transfer hub for QR staff....
I don't support bowen hills as a feederisation station in its current state...

[#Metro]

They still have to walk from central station once they get to the city...

Plenty of people walk from Central Station every day, some through to Adelaide street via Anzac Square. It's about 110 m from Central to the CityGlider stop on Adelaide street. The city is very walkable and there are also plenty of e-scooters around as well.

The CityGlider stops are deliberately placed about 700 - 800 m apart, so anybody who catches the CityGlider service is already well acquainted with walking at least 400 m.

And when Cross River Rail comes online, some of those trains will be CRR trains, which will stop at Albert street, right in the CBD.

Plenty of people are going to change trains at Bowen Hills, and especially so when Exhibition station comes online with CRR. Is Bowen Hills on the CRR upgrade list? Seems a no brainer to upgrade.

[SurfRail]

Bowen Hills will have no connection to CRR.

[techblitz]

@metro there is also the risk that the single trip addicted gasworks commuters simply shun bowen hills and head in the opposite direction on an easy single trip inbound 199.....it would create problems for people in newfarm and along Brunswick st if this happened...


Approx travel times:
12-15 mins from gasworks to cbd on the current blue glider...
25 mins gasworks to city on the inbound 199...

199 via bowen hills / central:
5 to bowen hills  >> 5 to transfer onto train >> 5 to central >> 5 mins walk to cbd == 20 mins.

[Gazza]

Lets thing strategically for a second.

-The 199 is already quite full in peak hour and running every 5 mins so if you withdrew the Blue Glider then the 199 has to pick up the slack and run extra buses for ferry passengers, so you haven't really saved resources, just rearranged deckchairs. And now those passengers have to do a tour of Macquarie st.

-Ann St, from Skyring Terrace to Central is 2.4km, so the actual amount of duplication is quite small. (Compared to like 9km on Gympie Rd for several routes)

-We shouldn't forget that Ann St in the valley has a lot of workplaces and businesses anyway so its going to be longer to travel across to the rail line compared to just using the blue gilder for those passengers.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.4563992,153.0371386,3a,60y,195.35h,116.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swpQDWE0Qz11DahGz26cQEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Ferry, then 1.5km on a bus to Bowen Hills then train is a lot of transferring in a short amount of time and I cant really see any benefits they are getting in return for the change?

-If we wanted to be hard nosed about avoiding duplication, then why not just run the gold glider from Bowen Hills to Hamilton?

[#Metro]

@metro there is also the risk that the single trip addicted gasworks commuters simply shun bowen hills and head in the opposite direction on an easy single trip inbound 199.....it would create problems for people in newfarm and along Brunswick st if this happened...

Why would they shun Bowen Hills train station when there is a train arriving every minute or so? Buses during peak hour through the Valley are congested and have to drive through multiple sets of traffic lights where they are delayed.

The New Farm / Brunswick St corridor is serviced by both the 196 and 199 and route 195.

The risk is that if you don't do it, you will miss out on the massive increase in access gained by connecting 199 to Bowen Hills which has access to every station on the QR network.

The 5 minute time difference claimed is within the error margin / variance and is more or less the same trip time. Of course, the Bowen Hills option is the option that provides greater access because not every trip is a trip to the CBD.

[#Metro]

-The 199 is already quite full in peak hour and running every 5 mins so if you withdrew the Blue Glider then the 199 has to pick up the slack and run extra buses for ferry passengers, so you haven't really saved resources, just rearranged deckchairs. And now those passengers have to do a tour of Macquarie st.

Whether this is actually the case or not will hopefully become clearer with the financial case being done by BCC ($100K).

Where is the Gold CityGlider originating from? If it is from Cultural Centre (the common interchange point for all CG services) then it would duplicate all the way from Cultural Centre, through the Valley and then all the way along Kingsford Smith Drive (remember: CityGlider buses already travel along KSD once they have done their runs as they are all housed at Eagle Farm Depot).

High use of the ferry at Tenneriffe is likely due to the lack of bus service in Bulimba. Rather than spend all the money on the Gold CG, how about using some of that to boost service in Bulimba with at BUZ 230/BulimbaGlider service?

-Ann St, from Skyring Terrace to Central is 2.4km, so the actual amount of duplication is quite small. (Compared to like 9km on Gympie Rd for several routes)

This comment overlooks the duplication that happens from CityGlider buses travelling at high frequency to Eagle Farm Depot from Teneriffe in out of service mode. It would be rather simple to bring those out of service mode buses that are **already doing this trip** along KSD into service.

Ferry, then 1.5km on a bus to Bowen Hills then train is a lot of transferring in a short amount of time and I cant really see any benefits they are getting in return for the change?

Run the trial then. Extend 199 to Bowen Hills and leave the Glider as is for an interim period. See what happens.

There really should be no need for pax to catch a ferry and then transfer to a bus on the other side of the Brisbane River. Ferries are not that frequent and have large dwell times for docking. This high pax from CityCat is a reflection of poor service and a lack of BUZ/BulimbaGlider in Bulimba IMHO.

-If we wanted to be hard nosed about avoiding duplication, then why not just run the gold glider from Bowen Hills to Hamilton?

If you want to explore that, make that proposal then.

[Gazza]

Well there's bus jump lanes through the valley but okay.

*****

It's like this:

We all know that designing a system with interchange in mind is a good thing. But the interchange actually has to offer an advantage to passengers.
Normally that would be:

-The trunk offering time savings,
-Upgraded frequency on the feederised route,

As techblitz demonstrated it's not offering a time saving. At best it's equal to just staying on the blue glider.

It's not offering a frequency increase either because although Bowen hills offers a lot of trains, you're still ultimately limited by the wait time for the bus from bowen hills to newstead.

So therefore the change is not going to help passengers.

[Gazza]

Run the trial then.

They did have the 393 from the ferry to Bowen Hills then the Hospital.
https://translink.com.au/sites/default/files/acquiadam-assets/timetables/170109-393.pdf

Previously it was high frequency but now just runs every 10 min in peak so theres some evidence on the usage of such a link.

Ferries are not that frequent

Yes they are, its 10 min or less frequency throughout the day.

With the 230, I agree it should be a BUZ, but more for the overall corridor.

From Bulimba Oxford st, its 36 min off peak on the 230 to City Hall, or 51 mins at 8am in the height of peak
https://jp.translink.com.au/plan-your-journey/timetables/bus/t/230/inbound/2021-11-01

That's our benchmark.

Meanwhile im getting a journey time of 27-33 mins for the Ferry and Glider combo in off peak, and surprisingly not too much different in peak!


Using the ferry and Blue Glider is a rational choice for passengers in Bulimba because it is faster than the 230.

[#Metro]

Well there's bus jump lanes through the valley but okay.

- Rail is Class A exclusive ROW, buses on surface streets Class B. Buses have to traverse 13 sets of traffic lights from Adelaide St through the Valley before getting into Skyring Tce. And 12 on the way inbound. Those are all points where a bus can get held up, and traffic is even worse when it rains.

As techblitz demonstrated it's not offering a time saving. At best it's equal to just staying on the blue glider.

It's not offering a frequency increase either because although Bowen hills offers a lot of trains, you're still ultimately limited by the wait time for the bus from bowen hills to newstead.

So therefore the change is not going to help passengers.

- Statement above omitted value of access provided at Bowen Hills to all stations on the entire QR network. Some people, for example, might be going to work in Milton, and would benefit by having easy access to Ipswich/Springfield trains. Or work at Brisbane Airport, and value access to Airport trains. It's not just about the CBD. 199 extension to Bowen Hills increases network access to a lot more destinations than right now.

- 393 is not suitable for the connection role and scooter is not really an option to make the connection due to the hilly gradient.

- Disagree with the frequency claim "limited by the wait time for the bus from bowen hills to newstead". Wait time would be minimal in peak as 199 runs every 5 minutes between 7.30 am and 8.15 am. Average wait time during peak for the bus to Bowen Hills on the 199 in this scenario would be 150 seconds.

They did have the 393 from the ferry to Bowen Hills then the Hospital.
https://translink.com.au/sites/default/files/acquiadam-assets/timetables/170109-393.pdf

Previously it was high frequency but now just runs every 10 min in peak so theres some evidence on the usage of such a link.

- A simple extension of 199 would be much better than that 393 milk run and the network could be simplified further when 199 is extended to Bowen Hills. For these reasons I expect it would be far better patronised than any previous trial (e.g. 393) which I believe happened almost a decade ago. A lot more development exists now as well.

From Bulimba Oxford st, its 36 min off peak on the 230 to City Hall, or 51 mins at 8am in the height of peak
https://jp.translink.com.au/plan-your-journey/timetables/bus/t/230/inbound/2021-11-01

That's our benchmark.

Meanwhile im getting a journey time of 27-33 mins for the Ferry and Glider combo in off peak, and surprisingly not too much different in peak!

Using the ferry and Blue Glider is a rational choice for passengers in Bulimba because it is faster than the 230.

I'd like to see a full workup of the numbers/breakdown of the journey components including the waiting time not just in-vehicle trip times.

The other issue to consider is that you have to consider the trip times if Route 230 were converted to BulimbaGlider. That would mean a lot of stops would come out, stop spacing would be much wider in a BulimbaGlider and the actual speed of service in Bulimba would mean a much reduced time to the CBD, even in peak.

[Gazza]

Rail is Class A exclusive ROW, buses on surface streets Class B.

Ya but you're having to go away from the city on a C ROW up Montpelier and Abbottsford to get to Bowen hills in the first place  to take advantage of the Class A rail.
It's not as if the class B on Ann St is that bad TBH.

Race two buses.
By the time bus A has even reached Bowen Hills, bus B would already be into the valley.

I'd like to see a full workup of the numbers/breakdown of the journey components including the waiting time not just in-vehicle trip times.

Ferry and Glider both have a 5 min average wait, so waiting time would be 10 min average across the whole journey.
230 would have an average wait of 7.5 mins off peak or 5 min peak.

Thus for the 230, adding to the journey times I gave.

43.5 min off peak.
56 min peak

For the Glider and Ferry I only need to add the initial 5 mins, because the journey planner already factors in the mid trip connection time.
32 min off peak
37 min peak.

Also, even if we had the foam scenario where the 230 was every 10 min off peak, that would mean an average journey time of 41 mins, which is still slower than the ferry and glider by 11 mins!

[#Metro]

Race two buses.
By the time bus A has even reached Bowen Hills, bus B would already be into the valley.

Are you suggesting that if the buses were to leave Tenneriffe Ferry, Bus B would already be at Stop 216 Chinatown before Bus A had reached Bowen Hills station?

Bus A would be at Bowen Hills station in 5 min. In uncongested traffic, sure Bus B would be At Chinatown in 6 minutes. However, in peak hour, that time could blow out to 16 minutes (Google).

And in any case, this issue set aside, making the connection of 199 to Bowen Hills increases network connectivity overall.

The other thing is that if the Blue CityGlider were extended to Portside, perhaps people from Newstead could spend 2.5 minutes or so walking around the corner to Breakfast Creek Road Stop 9 at Riverpark and then catch it to the CBD as you would like??

[Gazza]

Pretty much, I was more thinking mid valley not specifically chinatown.
in the height of peak its indeed 5 mins to James St/Valley pool, or 8 min to Chinatown.

[Gazza]

The other thing is that if the Blue CityGlider were extended to Portside, perhaps people from Newstead could spend 2.5 minutes or so walking around the corner to Breakfast Creek Road Stop 9 at Riverpark and then catch it to the CBD as you would like??

You cant walk almost 1km in 2.5 mins I'm sorry to say.

[#Metro]

Pretty much, I was more thinking mid valley not specifically chinatown.
in the height of peak its indeed 5 mins to James St/Valley pool, or 8 min to Chinatown.

Wouldn't you agree that Chinatown is a more appropriate location because that's where the main activity centre is located, rather than say, Valley Pool?

You cant walk almost 1km in 2.5 mins I'm sorry to say.

If I can assist you in this way - do you see the stop Skyring Tce near Cunningham St Stop ID: 020524 on the map you have provided?

That stop is the main one for residents of Newstead as that really is in front of the Gasworks precinct.

Do you agree that passengers who currently use the Skyring Tce stop, and who wish to continue to use the Blue CityGlider, could walk 300 m (about 2-3 minutes) to catch the Blue CityGlider into the CBD from Breakfast Creek Rd at Riverpark Stop 9 Stop ID: 000242?

[Gazza]

Wouldn't you agree that Chinatown is a more appropriate location because that's where the main activity centre is located, rather than say, Valley Pool?

Not necessarily, I think the other end of the valley is where all the preimum office space and jobs are is. Aecom, Technology one, Laing O'rouke etc have towers there.
It's basically a CBD and has taken over from little old mcwhirters and its assortment of tobacconists.

If I can assist you in this way - do you see the stop Skyring Tce near Cunningham St Stop ID: 020524 on the map you have provided?

That stop is the main one for residents of Newstead as that really is in front of the Gasworks precinct.

Do you agree that passengers who currently use the Skyring Tce stop, and who wish to continue to use the Blue CityGlider, could walk 300 m (about 2-3 minutes) to catch the Blue CityGlider into the CBD from Breakfast Creek Rd at Riverpark Stop 9 Stop ID: 000242?
[/quote]
Im not too fussed about that stop, its the ferry connection I'm worried about.

[#Metro]

Not necessarily, I think the other end of the valley is where all the preimum office space and jobs are is. Aecom, Technology one, Laing O'rouke etc have towers there. It's basically a CBD and has taken over from little old mcwhirters and its assortment of tobacconists.

I've looked up the location of AECOM, Technology One etc.

- Newstead is so close that a passenger could just get the Blue CityGlider from Breakfast Ck road stop (under the concept), catch Route 300 or walk or get a scooter there. AECOM etc are areas that would still be served by the BlueCityGlider.

Tenneriffe Ferry Passengers - The "Loss Aversion" Case

There is one issue - that if you live in Bulimba around Oxford St (say near Woolworths Bulimba) and work at AECOM (or thereabouts) in the Valley and you make the river crossing. That is a very specific trip. This is the representative "loss aversion" case.

Yes, it would be an extra transfer, but that said, the location around AECOM would still be accessible as both 199 and Blue CityGlider services would be very frequent. You could also look at terminating some other bus service into the area (maybe iron out the 470 and add some peak trips).

Consideration

- Here, I think the benefits of extending the Blue CityGlider to Hamilton (where there is a massive development, future Olympics Village, and a mid-size pharma company is going to construct its global HQ) would probably generate a lot more passengers than those who make the ferry crossing from Bulimba.

- I am not yet convinced that inventing a new Gold CityGlider - at a cost of ~ $2-3 million/year to solely serve the loss aversion case - is warranted.

- A passenger undertaking the loss aversion case would cross the river using the CityCat or Ferry, then catch 199 to Breakfast Creek and then walk to the Skyring Tce near Cunningham St stop for their trip to AECOM. That is more transferring, however, the 199 would be running at least every 5 min and the combined effect of the Route 300 + Blue CityGlider on Breakfast Creek Road would be mean frequencies of about a bus every 2-3 minutes or so.

I think the demand for that specific origin-destination pair would also drop if the 230 BulimbaGlider were introduced and the route ironed out (e.g. stop spacing etc).

[Gazza]

I think "Loss Aversion" is just a reductive way of not dealing with real world issues.
No matter what valid objection someone raises, it's clearly just their 'loss aversion' getting in the way of other grand plans and they should just be quiet right?

It's not just that specific trip. As i demonstrated, literally any citybound commuter is better off going 3.5km via bus from the ferry wharf to the CBD
Compared to 10km going around via East Brisbane on the 230. No amount of stop consolidation is going to get around that geometric reality.

That's not to say the 230 doesn't add value on its overall corridor, it's jut not an equal substitute for people in northern Bulimba IMHO.

As I see it, the Blue Glider is a productive, direct, highly patronised route.
Both Wickham and Ann St warrant 24h bus lanes IMO, and that then solves the reliability issue (Riding Rd probably wont ever get bus lanes)

I actually don't mind at all if several HF routes overlap on this section, so sue me.
-Gold Glider
-Blue Glider
-300

In terms of rail connections, you can make them at Fortitude valley, and once CRR is open, then we probably should look at rejigging the 393 and have it service Ekka station and go beyond RBWH.

[#Metro]

I think "Loss Aversion" is just a reductive way of not dealing with real world issues.
No matter what valid objection someone raises, it's clearly just their 'loss aversion' getting in the way of other grand plans and they should just be quiet right?

- What is the basis for putting $3-4 million aside just to service the loss aversion case? Wouldn't that deprive other deserving parts of Brisbane of decent service, for example, Bulimba and everyone who lives in the entire catchment of the 230 services? Bulimba residents could get a BUZ with the money set aside for the Gold CityGlider.

- Service in the loss aversion case isn't discontinued, it is still possible for the resident that Lives near Oxford St in Bulimba to get to work at AECOM, it would just require an additional bus change. Given that both buses (Blue CityGlider on Breakfast Ck road and 199 Bowen Hills) would be both running at 5 min frequencies at peak, that is reasonable IMHO.

I actually don't mind at all if several HF routes overlap on this section, so sue me.
-Gold Glider
-Blue Glider
-300

What is the benefit of having 30 buses/hour all overlapping like this?

Isn't this the kind of philosophy that has placed the entire city of Brisbane is with a big problem?
This thinking creates a problem where the frequency is placed exactly where it isn't required - on overlapping corridors like Old Cleveland Road or Coronation Drive. And it leaves places like Bulimba, Albany Creek, Yeronga, Centenary Suburbs etc. deprived of service.

[Gazza]

You make it sound as if you can just tack a little extension onto both the 199 and the Blue glider and leave it at that and "save: $3-4m" 

The reality is that both of these routes are some of the most overloaded in Brisbane, so putting on extra passengers upstream will inevitably mean bumping up the frequency since the route will have millions of extra trips per year.

[#Metro]

The reality is that both of these routes are some of the most overloaded in Brisbane, so putting on extra passengers upstream will inevitably mean bumping up the frequency since the route will have millions of extra trips per year.

We are talking about 1 stop right at the end/beginning of the route. You know, where the vehicle tends to be the least crowded because everybody has already got off at every other stop preceding it on the route.

The rest of the Blue CityGlider route once it passes SkyRing Tce inbound to the city is unchanged.

I think it is a fair compromise IMHO.

Residents at Portside and Hamilton are going to have an excellent service under this concept, straight run down KSD through the City and Valley, all the way through to Cultural Centre and then Montague Rd West End.

[Gazza]

We are talking about 1 stop right at the end/beginning of the route. You know, where the vehicle tends to be the least crowded because everybody has already got off at every other stop preceding it on the route.

No, the end stop here is adjacent to another mode, so its quite often very full from the first stop.
You often see the same phenomenon at Toowong where the 402 would fill with rail passengers from stop 1.

https://seqtransit.henrus1.com/

We can see at that in 2019
297595 pax disembark at the Tenerrife Ferry stop
264952 pax board at the Tenerife bus stop

So there is a huge number of passengers making connections there with that correlation.

[Gazza]

What is the benefit of having 30 buses/hour all overlapping like this?

Isn't this the kind of philosophy that has placed the entire city of Brisbane is with a big problem?
This thinking creates a problem where the frequency is placed exactly where it isn't required - on overlapping corridors like Old Cleveland Road or Coronation Drive. And it leaves places like Bulimba, Albany Creek, Yeronga, Centenary Suburbs etc. deprived of service.

Overlapping is a problem when the system is carrying air.
See: Cultural Center.

CityGlider is running artics now, and is heavily patronised, so I would say no its not carrying air.


The red lines on this map represent bus corridors with a lot of duplication. The green segment is the bit that would be duplicated if a Gold Glider or BUZ 300 existed. Notice its  so much shorter, and entirely within a high density area, so that's why im OK with it.

[SurfRail]

I see nobody has picked up on the fact Bowen Hills will not have a connection to Albert Street, meaning we would be forcing people to use Central and therefore have a longer trip on foot in the CBD than they do now from Adelaide St (for most commuters).

I think the corridor through Newstead needs rationalisation, and I sincerely doubt the "Gold" Cityglider is a good idea, but I'm struggling with why we are ignoring the fact the original version of the 393 provided exactly the same link we're talking about here and it went nowhere patronage wise, even with the direct connection to RBWH and the INB and higher frequency than it has now.

[Gazza]

Residents at Portside and Hamilton are going to have an excellent service under this concept, straight run down KSD through the City and Valley, all the way through to Cultural Centre and then Montague Rd West End.

I'm also struggling with this idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
In the post above the argument is that a direct service "straight run" is a really good thing.

But then on the other hand that its not really important and that Tenerife can just walk further or change onto rail.

So is a direct service important or not? And why do Portside residents need it more than Tenerife?

[Cazza]

How I see it:

The 199 should be extended to Bowen Hills Station in any scenario and this can be done tomorrow if it were truly wanted. Although a new bus interchange built to the south of the station would be ideal, it is not necessarily required and Route 199 services can easily run a loop (Montpellier Rd, R Abbotsford Rd, terminate/start at Bowen Hills Station Abbotsford Rd, R Folkstone St, R Cintra St, L Montpellier Rd and continue normal route). Layover can easily be done on Abbotsford Rd given the fact that the left lane "opens up" after the Montpellier Rd intersection and ends just after Edmonstone Rd, allowing buses to layover and not impede traffic. The only thing I would look at for this extension is for bus priority along Montpellier Rd (the traffic along here in both the morning and afternoons peaks in both directions is normally quite bad).
Now, the main reason I propose the 199 to run to Bowen Hills Station is not for CBD-bound commuters from Newstead to transfer onto trains- it's actually for Newstead/Teneriffe/New Farm bound passengers coming from the northside. No one will ever want to get a 199 from Teneriffe to Bowen Hills then change for a train to Central. It may be optimal for them to change to a southbound train for journeys further south than the CBD but to think that people will be willing to transfer onto a train to Central here is quite bizarre. It's a huge back-track, a massive psychological 'WTF?' and honestly, a really unnecessary transfer when they are beginning their journey so close to their destination anyway. It's not ideal having commuters have to transfer within 3 or so minutes (ie. less than 1km) of them starting their journey (although I do it with my beloved 373 if I time one of the 9 daily outbound services at Newmarket right ).

I do see a lot of merit in both retaining the 60 in it's current form and also extending it to Northshore. However, this all comes down to how the network is structured around it. If the 60 remains as is, I propose:
     -Route 60: Service remains as is (albeit, with minor timetable adjustments to run every 3-5 mins peak, 10 mins off-peak and weekends and 15 mins at night. Stop spacing should be shortened to service additional stops (e.g. every 400m or so) to provide a consistent stopping pattern along with Route 300 BUZ. Valley Island stop needs to be removed and buses should use curb side bus stops at All Hallows (footpath widening will be required and can be accommodated by pushing the traffic lanes further north-west). Bus lanes can comfortably be put down Ann St/Wickham St in the left lane all the way from Waterloo St (Newstead) to Queen St (City) and significantly reduce the chronic bus delays through this section.
     -Route 199 BUZ: Extended to Bowen Hills Station, services bus stops on Skyring Tce and does not loop around Teneriffe Ferry roundabout (as is currently the case). Bus priority needs to be explored along Montpellier Rd, particuarly at the intersection of BCR/Montpellier).
     -Route 300 BUZ: Service now increased to BUZ standard with some stop consolidation in Hendra/Ascot and along Ann St/Wickham St to provide a consistent stop pattern with Route 60. It should operate a consistent 10 min peak frequency and 15 mins at all other times. Bus lanes need to be put in along KSD, not only for Routes 300, 302 and 305 but also for literally every single bus coming to/from Eagle Farm depot. Why Council has not seriously considered this I do not know.
     -Route 302: Ideally, it should terminate at RBWH via Bowen Hills Station. Trying to access Eagle Farm from the northside is such a pain. Providing connections to trains at Bowen Hills and key northside services at RBWH would be a huge step in unlocking the PT potential of these workers at Eagle Farm. Anyone coming from the southside can still easily change from trains at Bowen Hills or buses/trains at RBWH/Exhibition. Hourly off-peak services should also be looked into.
     -Route 305: Northshore Hamilton to RBWH Station via Portside, Bretts Wharf, Hamilton, Newstead and Bowen Hills Station (https://www.google.com.au/maps/dir/-27.4432635,153.0815583/-27.4459104,153.0290777/@-27.4435387,153.0378795,6666m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m9!4m8!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d153.039229!2d-27.4442684!3s0x6b9159bfe5546355:0x454d27ab60cc42dc!1m0!3e0 - just pretend the start of the route is Macarthur Ave @ Old Shoreline. Due to road closures, Google Maps doesn't allow a traffic route to be put through here). Service operates every 10 mins during peaks, every 15 mins off-peak and weekends and every 30 mins after 9pm. Service combines with Route 300 between Bretts Wharf and Newstead during peaks (5 min frequency), off-peak and weekends (7-8 min frequency). The high density residential at Northshore and Portside warrants 15 min daytime frequencies, as well as the very popular Eat Street getting a regular and useful service for the first time. 15 min frequencies are required until at least 9pm, 7 days to cater for these diners, as well as the popular Portside dining, shopping and cinema precinct. CBD commuters can transfer to Route 300 at Bretts Wharf and those Bowen Hills/RBWH commuters from route 300 can transfer onto Route 305 here too.

If Route 60 extended to Northshore:
     -Route 60: Extend to Northshore via BCR, KSD, Portside and Eat Street. May need to reduce off-peak frequencies to every 15 mins to combine with Route 300 between Bretts Wharf and the Cultural Centre for services every 7-8 mins. However, this wouldn't be ideal as 10 min frequencies are required across the whole route.
     -Route 199: Same as above.
     -Route 300: Same as above, however, could look at reducing night frequencies to every 30 mins and figure out a way to better combine with Route 60 to provide consistent frequencies.
     -Route 302: Same as above.
     -Route 305: gone.
     -To solve the 'Teneriffe Ferry issue', a new route (possibly an extension of Route 192) could be looked at to run to/from Teneriffe Wharf direct via Commercial Rd (like Route 60 used to but in both directions). It should run every 10 mins (or better) during peaks, every 15 mins off-peak and weekends and potentially drop back to every 30 min after 9-10pm. This means those travelling from Bulimba still have a direct, frequent service into the heart of the CBD, it provides greater coverage to the Commercial Rd area (only covered by the hourly 470) and solves the issue of West End dropping down to a 15 min Route 60 frequency (the 60 and 192 can then consolidate/share the same stops in West End and provide a consistent 7-8 min frequency). Although it won't serve Gasworks and will require CBD commuters to walk to BCR to catch Routes 60 or 300 into the city (preferred option) or the longer Route 199, it will provide an even faster service for Teneriffe ferry commuters (although not strictly required) and provide better coverage of the growing Commercial Rd area.

These are just 2 of my possible scenarios and there are definitely many more I haven't thought of. However, it I was to pick the one I'd prefer, it would probably be the first- a more simplified solution (not as many "combined" frequencies created between 2 routes), greater onward network connectivity and increased reliability for Route 60 (not needing to run an extra 25 odd-minutes).


Also side note, Metro, saying because Route 60 buses are housed at Eagle Farm depot does not mean it will be a cost-neutral extension to Northshore. Not every service terminates at Teneriffe, heads dead to Eagle Farm depot, has a break then blank runs back to Teneriffe to start another run. Most services terminate at Teneriffe, layover for 4 mins, then run back to West End.

So, assuming a 10 min travel time between BCR @ Montpellier Rd, and Northshore, 4 min layover at Northshore, 10 min return journey (minus 4 mins total for not travelling between BCR and Teneriffe Ferry via Skyring Tce) and you're looking at upwards of an extra 20 mins of service running, or an extra 5-6 buses required to maintain the existing 4 min peak hour frequencies.

[Gazza]

Could you extend the 60 to Bowen Hills instead,  if you switch that the routing to do commercial Road then the ferry then the station

[Cazza]

You could, but that just seems a bit clunky for what it's worth. I do see merit in it, still providing a fast ferry connection, maintaining a direct Gasworks Stop (although this shouldn't be the deciding factor and the walk to/from BCR is more than doable) and connecting to Bowen Hills. However, I see the 199 running to/from Bowen Hills is much a more direct, logical route and provides greater opportunities for those coming from the northside by train to access New Farm itself. Route 60 provides a connection (I'll use that term loosely here) at Fortitude Valley Station, meaning that it has 2 rail connections within the space of a few kms, but the 199 still is quite isolated from the rail network. A small extension to Bowen Hills completely opens up the whole New Farm peninsula, rather than just a small section of Ann/Wickhams Sts (that aren't already covered by rail) and the Commercial Rd/Gasworks area (which don't get me wrong, is the most crucial part of this station link).

[#Metro]

I agree with Cazza, extension of route 199 to Bowen Hills is a good idea. Shame CRR won't stop there.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul (or robbing Peta to pay Paula) has a name: network optimisation.

Bus services in Bulimba are a bad joke and with money saved avoiding a gold plated Gold CityGlider could go towards a new BulimbaGlider. The Olympic Village is literally going to be built at Portside which is a great reason to support CityGlider going there.

[HappyTrainGuy]

@metro there is also the risk that the single trip addicted gasworks commuters simply shun bowen hills and head in the opposite direction on an easy single trip inbound 199.....it would create problems for people in newfarm and along Brunswick st if this happened...

Why would they shun Bowen Hills train station when there is a train arriving every minute or so? Buses during peak hour through the Valley are congested and have to drive through multiple sets of traffic lights where they are delayed.

The New Farm / Brunswick St corridor is serviced by both the 196 and 199 and route 195.

The risk is that if you don't do it, you will miss out on the massive increase in access gained by connecting 199 to Bowen Hills which has access to every station on the QR network.

The 5 minute time difference claimed is within the error margin / variance and is more or less the same trip time. Of course, the Bowen Hills option is the option that provides greater access because not every trip is a trip to the CBD.

At the moment. When CRR opens you can more than likely strike off Kippa Ring/Caboolture/Nambour/Gold Coast/Beenleigh services from Bowen Hills. And services are going to be limited to flat junction running at Eagle Junction and single track running at Shorncliffe so don't expect trains to be uniformed in their timings. Similar to the gaps that appear now with Gold Coast and Cleveland trains running within 5 mins.

You also have the problem of the interchange. Abbotsford Road is 6 lanes wide and there have been so many pedestrians struck/nearly hit running through traffic outside of the station. At least 8 that I know of have been hit by cars there from the bus stop inbound to the lights down the bottom. There was a massive crash outside the station about a decade ago. Car slammed into the back of a parked car around midday. From what I recall they changed from the middle lane to the left lane not knowing a car was there. There were 4 inside the car and all went to hospital. A couple years before that a truck cleaned up a motorbike rider right outside the station entrance (not to be confused with the fatal bike vs truck crash under the ICB around the same time).

I don't have real input about the route but just some info about the station.

[Gazza]

Here's one way you might arrange things:

[#Metro]

Thanks for the map.
Any other feedback or comments from members about the concept?

[aldonius]

Here's where I'm at:

The Gold Glider itself is likely going to resemble the 61 much more than the 60 in terms of frequency. (The most important thing "Glider" designates is that BCC pays more of the costs.)

As far as duplication goes, the way I see it is you can either have two routes on the inner part of the corridor, or you can have too much service on the outer end of the corridor. The 60's already had to upgrade to artics (and yes, the northern end has the heavier loads).

Gasworks and Tenerife on the 60 alone continue to produce more boardings than the entire route 300 does, so (a) I'm disinclined to mess with a good thing (b) running very frequent service an extra 5km out to Northshore to accommodate Newstead's demand seems silly.

I'm ambivalent about extending the 199, for the reasons others have raised: the 393 has never gotten especially great results and Bowen Hills is about to be much less important.

I don't suppose BCC would be willing to entertain the concept, but terminating the 300 at Bretts Wharf would do a minor amount of deduplication.

[#Metro]

Hi Aldonius,

Where is the stop level boarding data?

I wasn't able to find anything here https://www.data.qld.gov.au/dataset/translink-monthly-performance-data

[Gazza]

^ https://seqtransit.henrus1.com/

Currently the 60 runs at 12bph in peak. You could dial that back to 6bph to ensure every ferry meets a bus and there is sufficient starting capacity, and then shift 6bph to North Shore. So in peak you'd have 12bph on the common section which is fine.

So both branches run at high frequency and supply is matched to demand.