On the Buses

[techblitz]

just did a little check on our little 314 
Given its joke of a frequency it is still carrying 3 times more passengers per service than the 698 which is allocated 15 times more services.....really does show you how bad the 698 is...

But there is an even worse route than the 698.....the Northshore-Doomben route
304 coming in @ 0.89 pax per service..
I think the 304 would have to be the worst performing route in SEQ...perhaps QLD...
Cant imagine any other route out there doing worse at the moment.

[achiruel]

Well, clearly the 314 should be BUZzed then!

[techblitz]

^ then I guess the 683 or 304 should be glidered

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Schrinner/status/1062111655037829120

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/TransLinkSEQ/status/1062487705207087105

[verbatim9]

Councillor Schrinner is advocating for council to run buses to Chandler. I second that! The 222 could easily be extended from Carindale interchange and turnaround at Chandler park n ride. People can use the bus to get to events at Chandler easier as well as catch PT on a regular basis to use the Aquatic centre.

https://www.facebook.com/35421541164/posts/10156985996926165/

[achiruel]

I really think there are many improvements that could be made to the TfB bus network more pressing than an extension of the 222 to Chandler. If it really does need more services, I'd prefer funding go to increasing the span/frequency of the 250. For the few events that attract more than a handful of spectators, special services can be run. I really can't see the benefit to this idea.

[verbatim9]

I really think there are many improvements that could be made to the TfB bus network more pressing than an extension of the 222 to Chandler. If it really does need more services, I'd prefer funding go to increasing the span/frequency of the 250. For the few events that attract more than a handful of spectators, special services can be run. I really can't see the benefit to this idea.

At least council is seeking a solution. The High Frequecy 222 would be ideal to be extended a few more kms down the road. Together with the 250 that park n ride may end up very popular knowing there is a bus 7 days until late that runs into the CBD via key precincts Carindale, Westfield, Coorparoo, Stones Corner, Mater Hospital and QCH Souhbank etc....and  transfer points such as Buranda.

[James]

I'm torn on extending the 222 to Chandler.

If the Park n Ride there is mostly empty currently, it would encourage bayside commuters to park at Chandler, rather than park in and around Carindale/Carina, particularly around Route 200. This would significantly improve amenity for locals in both areas and reduce congestion around Carindale. On the flip side, extending every service to Chandler could prove very expensive and potentially flop - in peak all the P-rockets already serve Chandler anyway, so it isn't like there is a lack of service to it in peak.

Personally I think the best solution would be to run the 250/270 at a combined BUZ standard from Carindale, particularly on the weekends and late at night, and advertise it as such.

[verbatim9]

I'm torn on extending the 222 to Chandler.

If the Park n Ride there is mostly empty currently, it would encourage bayside commuters to park at Chandler, rather than park in and around Carindale/Carina, particularly around Route 200. This would significantly improve amenity for locals in both areas and reduce congestion around Carindale. On the flip side, extending every service to Chandler could prove very expensive and potentially flop - in peak all the P-rockets already serve Chandler anyway, so it isn't like there is a lack of service to it in peak.

Personally I think the best solution would be to run the 250/270 at a combined BUZ standard from Carindale, particularly on the weekends and late at night, and advertise it as such.

Turning the 250/270 into a High Frequency route would be  a very expensive exercise. Better utilise the existing HF route 222. It just makes sense to extend it to Chandler. It is so car orientated in the East. Changing the 250 to a HF service and running it along the existing road  network has no real benefit to community nor the tax payer. Better having those people out East driving to Chandler and parking at an already well established piece of infrastructure. If it proves successful and the Carpark is full on a weekday then one could investigate turning the 250 in a HF route. Another issue would be the BNE, metro project. I don't think council would want the 250 rocking up at the Se Busway every few minutes on top of the 222.

[James]

Turning the 250/270 into a High Frequency route would be  a very expensive exercise. Better utilise the existing HF route 222. It just makes sense to extend it to Chandler. It is so car orientated in the East. Changing the 250 to a HF service and running it along the existing road  network has no real benefit to community nor the tax payer. Better having those people out East driving to Chandler and parking at an already well established piece of infrastructure. If it proves successful and the Carpark is full on a weekday then one could investigate turning the 250 in a HF route. Another issue would be the BNE, metro project. I don't think council would want the 250 rocking up at the Se Busway every few minutes on top of the 222.

The 250/270 already run at a combined 15 minute frequency between 8am and 5pm weekdays, and haphazardly depending on the peak direction at other times - it would not take too many extra resources to bump the service up to BUZ standard, or at least 6am - 9pm 7 days a week.

The 250 would then provide a better link between Victoria Point and Cleveland, Cleveland and Capalaba, and Capalaba into Carindale/CBD. Capalaba in particular would receive 15 minute frequency to Carindale from the combined 250/270.

This would also provide more benefit than simply extending every 222 service - a route which really should be removed and replaced anyway - there is no need for 8bph+ down Old Cleveland Road at 10pm on a Tuesday night.

[verbatim9]

Turning the 250/270 into a High Frequency route would be  a very expensive exercise. Better utilise the existing HF route 222. It just makes sense to extend it to Chandler. It is so car orientated in the East. Changing the 250 to a HF service and running it along the existing road  network has no real benefit to community nor the tax payer. Better having those people out East driving to Chandler and parking at an already well established piece of infrastructure. If it proves successful and the Carpark is full on a weekday then one could investigate turning the 250 in a HF route. Another issue would be the BNE, metro project. I don't think council would want the 250 rocking up at the Se Busway every few minutes on top of the 222.

The 250/270 already run at a combined 15 minute frequency between 8am and 5pm weekdays, and haphazardly depending on the peak direction at other times - it would not take too many extra resources to bump the service up to BUZ standard, or at least 6am - 9pm 7 days a week.

The 250 would then provide a better link between Victoria Point and Cleveland, Cleveland and Capalaba, and Capalaba into Carindale/CBD. Capalaba in particular would receive 15 minute frequency to Carindale from the combined 250/270.

This would also provide more benefit than simply extending every 222 service - a route which really should be removed and replaced anyway - there is no need for 8bph+ down Old Cleveland Road at 10pm on a Tuesday night.

The 250/270 would never be called a Buz if it went to HF. This is BCC marketing. You would need to buy extra buses, employ extra drivers and rewrite contracts etc... for that particular provider to operate and maintain a 7 day HF route. If it was that easy it would of been done by now. BCC have put their hand up for a solution as they obviously have the resources and the will to do it. They wouldn't advocate for it if it cost too money or was a drain on resources.

[achiruel]

They wouldn't advocate for it if it cost too money or was a drain on resources.

Is that some kind of joke? BCC are massive fans of over-servicing certain corridors at the expense of decent service along others, e.g. Old Cleveland Rd, Gympie Rd vs Bulimba, Centenary. Their network planning is completely inept. Oh, and we all know what a joke Maroon CityGlider is. More duplication!

Fact is, considering the density of the surrounding area, Chandler already has a reasonable service for most of the day. It could probably use a boost at night and on weekends, but running 10-15 minute BUZ services for 18 hours a day to a Park n Ride in the middle of very low density rural-residential areas like Gumdale and Belmont is the epitome of wastefulness.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Schrinner/status/1062831733614174208

[OzGamer]

Park and Ride is so wasteful and peak travel oriented anyway, why not extend the P217 instead? Or even better, divert it so that it doesn't go into Carindale at all and just sails down Old Cleveland Road and terminates at the Chandler Park and Ride?

If you stay late after work you can still catch the 250 or 270 back.

[techblitz]

klummp rd P&R is still struggling...seriously with the amount of cars that use that rd council should double up and turn it into a major food truck precinct....this should probably be mirrored across a few other highly exposed park and rides also...

[achiruel]

Klumpp Rd P&R won't get any customers because of the lovely scenic tour the 120 takes to/from the CBD.

It was a moronic place to build a P&R in the first place.

[STB]

I'm torn on extending the 222 to Chandler.

If the Park n Ride there is mostly empty currently, it would encourage bayside commuters to park at Chandler, rather than park in and around Carindale/Carina, particularly around Route 200. This would significantly improve amenity for locals in both areas and reduce congestion around Carindale. On the flip side, extending every service to Chandler could prove very expensive and potentially flop - in peak all the P-rockets already serve Chandler anyway, so it isn't like there is a lack of service to it in peak.

Personally I think the best solution would be to run the 250/270 at a combined BUZ standard from Carindale, particularly on the weekends and late at night, and advertise it as such.

Turning the 250/270 into a High Frequency route would be  a very expensive exercise. Better utilise the existing HF route 222. It just makes sense to extend it to Chandler. It is so car orientated in the East. Changing the 250 to a HF service and running it along the existing road  network has no real benefit to community nor the tax payer. Better having those people out East driving to Chandler and parking at an already well established piece of infrastructure. If it proves successful and the Carpark is full on a weekday then one could investigate turning the 250 in a HF route. Another issue would be the BNE, metro project. I don't think council would want the 250 rocking up at the Se Busway every few minutes on top of the 222.

From my now fading memory of working at TL back in the day (nearly a decade now!), the contractual boundary for Old Cleveland Road for Brisbane Transport (TfB) ends at the Gateway Motorway, which basically means TransDev gets first dibs on Sleeman services ie: TransLink would need to upgrade the 250/270 corridor for Sleeman.

I agree with others though, Sleeman is generally quite well serviced already, there's already a high frequency of peak hour services from Sleeman already operating (between routes 243, 250, 251, 265, 267, 270 and 273).  I think it's simply because Sleeman is a bit out of the way and in a semi rural area (not near any shops/other services) that causes it to not attract as many people as say Carindale would (ie: someone could park and ride at Carindale, then on the way home stop by the shops to do shopping then drive home afterwards).

[STB]

Klumpp Rd P&R won't get any customers because of the lovely scenic tour the 120 takes to/from the CBD.

It was a moronic place to build a P&R in the first place.

Isn't that why route 186 exists?

(FYI - I think TL didn't do all that well with PnR infrastructure when TL took over it back in the late 00s - ie: bus routes didn't really get taken into account along with the surrounding area - the infrastructure teams didn't really work with the Planners IIRC, and in 2008 when Bligh came into power, the infrastructure teams were ripped out of TL when TL became the TTA).

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/TransLinkSEQ/status/1063174893234081792

[verbatim9]

^^Excellent initiative! As I have mentioned before in the real time thread it would be great to have this integrated into the Myer Centre electronic advertising and display boards, as well as other minor and major shopping centres throughout the state. #realtime

[ozbob]

For interest ...   

https://twitter.com/severeweatherEU/status/1063514050087276544

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Schrinner/status/1062831733614174208

Couriermail Quest --> Brisbane City Council not allowed to run buses from a stop in its own city

WONDERING why there were no free spaces at the park n ride this morning?

If you are living in Brisbane's southeast, it could be that a stroke of a bureaucrat's pen has cut your station off from Brisbane's bus network and shunted it into the Redlands.

The result is that while Carindale park n ride is a sardine tin for cars, Chandler park n ride is a wasteland.

It's a contradiction that's infuriated Brisbane deputy mayor and local councillor Adrian Schrinner for years.

Last Wednesday around 9am he sent his drone aloft to capture video proof of the practically empty Sleeman Centre park n ride.

"While many other park n rides are bursting at the seams, there's tumbleweed at Chandler on most days," he said.

He said the problem is that despite being in Brisbane, TransLink has put the Sleeman Centre into the Redlands bus contract area, serviced by private contractor TransDev and not Brisbane City Council.

All six peak-hour services leaving Chandler are express to the CBD after Westfield Carindale.

That means if commuters want to go anywhere other than the city and they hop on at Chandler, they must hop off at Carindale.

It's a five-minute drive but at least ten minutes on the bus and on top of that, most other services from the Sleeman Centre terminate at the Carindale interchange anyway.

Cr Schrinner said his residents would rather drive and park at Carindale than catch an extra bus.

"I think the gross under-utilisation of the park n ride is proof that there's a problem with services," Cr Schrinner said.

The deputy mayor wants TransLink to allow the council to share the Sleeman Centre bus stops with TransDev, so it can extend its peak-hour Carindale services to Chandler.

He said that new park n rides cost the State Government $70,000 per parking space.

"The State is spending over $44 million to build 650 car spaces at Springfield. At Chandler there are existing spaces not being used," he said.

Public transport advocate Rail Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow said the underused park n ride was "a waste of space".

"We're not talking about huge distances here," he said.

"It just seems to be some sort of bureaucratic boundary thing, they need to sit down and talk about it instead of slinging off about it in the media.

"What can be done to fix it?"

Cr Schrinner said council officers had "not had any luck" with previous requests to TransLink to share the bus stops.

A TransLink spokesman did not answer questions on whether TransLink would consider allowing Brisbane City Council and TransDev to share the Sleeman Centre bus stops.

He said the six express bus routes that run from the station "all have considerable capacity for additional passengers" and there was "no requirement for additional peak services".

Cr Schrinner, who is also the councillor for Chandler Ward, said it was also an "equity issue" for his constituents.

"They're in the Brisbane City Council area, part of the rates they pay go towards providing public transport services but they don't benefit from the transport services," he said.

"I'd like to see that change."

[techblitz]

7.11 7.18 7.42 7.45 8.10 8.12 8.30
that's the inbound frequency from the park and ride direct to the city....including 2  * 20+ minute gaps in peak....no wonder no-one uses it..
Highly likely a few of those services would be packed with schoolkids before they hit the sleeman center...
This is a typical altandi,northgate situation.....people parking where the frequency is...
Much better to just drive to Carindale and get an easy seat on the 222`s etc.

[STB]

Ah, I was right with my fading memory!  The contractual boundary for Brisbane City Council services is at the Gateway Motorway for the OCR corridor.

This means that TransDev's dibs on The Sleeman Centre, which means TL would need to add additional services to Routes 243, 250, 251, 265, 267, 273 and 275 (by the way, a bit misleading when they mention most buses terminate at Carindale in that article - that's only during off peak hours, not at peak hour).

@techblitz - I used to catch those services when I lived in the Redlands (also was the Planner for the Redlands from 2005-2009), and IIRC school kids definitely did not make the majority of pax on those services, was mostly office workers.

By the way, I think those boundaries were grandfathered in when TL came into being in 2004, and they haven't changed.  Essentially if TL tried to introduce BT services (or BCC tried it), TransDev would have the legal right to sue the state for lost patronage etc - at least that's the advice we got when we tried to introduce a bus route with Westside doing it in the Karalee area about a decade ago, the Contract Manager at the time stopped that from happening.

[STB]

Turning the 250/270 into a High Frequency route would be  a very expensive exercise. Better utilise the existing HF route 222. It just makes sense to extend it to Chandler. It is so car orientated in the East. Changing the 250 to a HF service and running it along the existing road  network has no real benefit to community nor the tax payer. Better having those people out East driving to Chandler and parking at an already well established piece of infrastructure. If it proves successful and the Carpark is full on a weekday then one could investigate turning the 250 in a HF route. Another issue would be the BNE, metro project. I don't think council would want the 250 rocking up at the Se Busway every few minutes on top of the 222.

The 250/270 already run at a combined 15 minute frequency between 8am and 5pm weekdays, and haphazardly depending on the peak direction at other times - it would not take too many extra resources to bump the service up to BUZ standard, or at least 6am - 9pm 7 days a week.

The 250 would then provide a better link between Victoria Point and Cleveland, Cleveland and Capalaba, and Capalaba into Carindale/CBD. Capalaba in particular would receive 15 minute frequency to Carindale from the combined 250/270.

This would also provide more benefit than simply extending every 222 service - a route which really should be removed and replaced anyway - there is no need for 8bph+ down Old Cleveland Road at 10pm on a Tuesday night.

I doubt that would happen.  Routes 250 and 270 are tied into the ferry departure and arrival times - and TL doesn't have control over those timetables (at least I didn't when I was the Planner for the Redlands region) - all we got at the time was the ferry operators handing us over the ferry timetable that they did up, which then we had to schedule routes 250 and 270 around it.

[STB]

7.11 7.18 7.42 7.45 8.10 8.12 8.30
that's the inbound frequency from the park and ride direct to the city....including 2  * 20+ minute gaps in peak....no wonder no-one uses it..
Highly likely a few of those services would be packed with schoolkids before they hit the sleeman center...
This is a typical altandi,northgate situation.....people parking where the frequency is...
Much better to just drive to Carindale and get an easy seat on the 222`s etc.

Incorrect.  You aren't taking into account the OCR services (The Sleeman Centre Stops C and D - the 'traditional stops', the stops used before The Sleeman Centre P&R was opened - passengers do use those stops as well, not just routes 243, 250 and 270.

Below are the departure times for The Sleeman Centre in AM Peak from 6am to 9am.

Route 243
7:18am
7:42am
8:12am

Route 250
7:11am
7:45am
8:10am
8:30am

Route 251
6:20am
6:54am
7:26am
7:56am

Route 265
6:40am
7:10am
7:40am

Route 267
6:46am
7:18am
7:48am

Route 273
6:27am
7:30am

Route 275
6:32am
7:06am
7:36am
8:06am

I've excluded route 270 as that service terminates at Carindale, which would require an interchange.

I worked alongside the guy who was the Project Manager for the park and ride at Sleeman, and the point of Sleeman was the take the pressure off the old park and ride at Capalaba (which was basically the shopping centre carpark), and the surrounding area, namely Wakerley.  It wasn't designed for passengers coming from beyond those areas, those passengers were expected to catch the local service nearby or use other park and rides.  Given the semi rural nature of the area, at the time (around 2006 this was when the P&R was built) the service levels were determined to be more than needed for the population density that the P&R was meant to capture.

Extending route 222 to Sleeman would not only be a breach of contract between TL and TransDev, it'd also be grossly overservicing that corridor IMO.

If I was still working as the Planner, I wouldn't allow the extension of route 222.

Trivia: I was the creator of route 243 - it was created to start when the Park and Ride began.

[achiruel]

Incorrect.  You aren't taking into account the OCR services (The Sleeman Centre Stops C and D - the 'traditional stops', the stops used before The Sleeman Centre P&R was opened - passengers do use those stops as well, not just routes 243, 250 and 270.

Ha, I was just about to post something like that after going through all the timetables, but you beat me to it! Although pedestrian accessiblity is an issue for the o/b stop - who wants to cross busy Old Cleveland Rd in peak hour to get back to their car? It's roughly 1/2 km via the nearest signalised crossing at Tilley Rd to the Stop B inside the Sleeman complex and then however far again back to the car.

I doubt that would happen.  Routes 250 and 270 are tied into the ferry departure and arrival times - and TL doesn't have control over those timetables (at least I didn't when I was the Planner for the Redlands region) - all we got at the time was the ferry operators handing us over the ferry timetable that they did up, which then we had to schedule routes 250 and 270 around it.

I understand they still need to meet the ferry times, but is there any reason they couldn't insert extra services between the existing ones?

As an example, 270 currently departs Victoria Point jetty every hour on the hour, what would be to stop in leaving on :30 as well?

Alternatively, why not have some 270 short workings commencing somewhere around Lyndon Rd to fill in the gaps.

[STB]

Incorrect.  You aren't taking into account the OCR services (The Sleeman Centre Stops C and D - the 'traditional stops', the stops used before The Sleeman Centre P&R was opened - passengers do use those stops as well, not just routes 243, 250 and 270.

Ha, I was just about to post something like that after going through all the timetables, but you beat me to it! Although pedestrian accessiblity is an issue for the o/b stop - who wants to cross busy Old Cleveland Rd in peak hour to get back to their car? It's roughly 1/2 km via the nearest signalised crossing at Tilley Rd to the Stop B inside the Sleeman complex and then however far again back to the car.

I doubt that would happen.  Routes 250 and 270 are tied into the ferry departure and arrival times - and TL doesn't have control over those timetables (at least I didn't when I was the Planner for the Redlands region) - all we got at the time was the ferry operators handing us over the ferry timetable that they did up, which then we had to schedule routes 250 and 270 around it.

I understand they still need to meet the ferry times, but is there any reason they couldn't insert extra services between the existing ones?

As an example, 270 currently departs Victoria Point jetty every hour on the hour, what would be to stop in leaving on :30 as well?

Alternatively, why not have some 270 short workings commencing somewhere around Lyndon Rd to fill in the gaps.

In regards to the Park and Ride and access from stop D, I vaguely remember overhearing that the intersection of Tilley Road and OCR being upgraded (where OCR below Tilley Road with on/off ramps) - a bit like how Mains Road and Kessels Road is setup - I guess that the stop would've been upgraded if that had happened, but I never heard anything about it after hearing it mentioned.  Perhaps what could be done is an overpass built from the stop to the park and ride?

In regards to adding additional routes 250 and 270 - that simply comes down to funding and resources.  I know when I was working at TL, we came up with a plan for a minimum of 15min services between Victoria Point and Brisbane City via Mount Cotton Road/Eight Mile Plains and 15min services between Cleveland/Capalaba and Brisbane City.  It sorta got partially implemented when route 271 was deleted and all passengers during peak hour from Victoria Point have to go via 8MP to get to the city - but this was implemented after I had basically 'retired' from the transport industry - ie: I left to go and do other things, which I'm still doing today.

[techblitz]

appears to be another failure a.k.a klumpp rd.....which also has frequency but not enough people interested.
Schrinner probably needs to be research of all that morning frequency from sleeman direct to the city which is getting little to no results....then he can perhaps re-think or reverse his pursuit of wanting TFB services there...

[achiruel]

Here is a handy little reference for inbound buses leaving Sleeman Centre between 6am and 9am weekdays.

Note I am not a TransLink representative of any kind, I don't guarantee this is free from errors, etc.

If anyone would like to share it around, that's fine, but I suggest someone other than me checks it for errors, first!

(Table is ordered by arrival time in CBD; X=express, T=terminates at Carindale).

Route	Dep. SC	Stop	Arr. CI		Arr City	Tfer To	Dep CI	Arr City
251	6:20	C		X	6:56
250	6:27	A	6:36	T		P217	6:40	7:03
273	6:27	C		X	7:03
275	6:32	C		X	7:08
265	6:40	C		X	7:16
267	6:46	C		X	7:22
251	6:54	C		X	7:30
275	7:06	C		X	7:42
270	7:01	A	7:09	T		222	7:15	7:46
265	7:10	C		X	7:50
250	7:11	A	7:22		7:53
243	7:18	A		X	7:58
267	7:18	C		X	7:58
251	7:26	C		X	8:06
270	7:31	A	7:38	T		P217	7:40	8:09
273	7:30	C		X	8:10
275	7:36	C		X	8:16
265	7:40	C		X	8:20
243	7:42	A		X	8:22
250	7:45	A	7:56		8:27
267	7:48	C		X	8:28
251	7:56	C		X	8:36
270	8:01	A	8:09	T		P201	8:12	8:46
275	8:06	C		X	8:46
250	8:10	A	8:21		8:52
243	8:12	A		X	8:52
250	8:30	A	8:41		9:12
270	8:42	A	8:50	T		222	8:55	9:26

[STB]

appears to be another failure a.k.a klumpp rd.....which also has frequency but not enough people interested.
Schrinner probably needs to be research of all that morning frequency from sleeman direct to the city which is getting little to no results....then he can perhaps re-think or reverse his pursuit of wanting TFB services there...

The cynical in me is thinking BCC are simply looking for more dollars to suck out of the State as bus routes are funded on a per KM basis, ie: if the state agrees to extend route 222 (it won't happen for various reasons as I've already pointed out), BCC/BT end up with more money coming in to fund that.

Hell, I remember when BCC/BT whinged when I redesigned the stopping pattern for route 250 about a decade ago when it used to continue into the city to stop at the white J poles and pick up/drop off as any normal bus route would do, and BCC/BT jumped up and down claiming it was eating into their patronage, when myself and the TL BT Planner agreed we were looking at the overall network on a corridor basis and at the end of the day, people don't really care who the operator is, they just see a bus!

[Paul B]

So the 66 is now a sweeper? All I ever see at RBWH platform 1 is 333's and 330s etc taking huge numbers of passengers, departing 5-10mins late
then getting later each stop as it takes so long to let people on and off. Then the 66 arrives casually, 5 mins late, picking up
a small amount of passengers in their 100 seater bus.
I thought it was the other way around, the 66 was meant to take the huge crowd
and the 333s and 340s were the sweeping buses.
Is there something I'm missing here? is the 66 timetable so fat that they're deliberately leaving 4-5 mins late each stop, like how the 60 blue glider?
I doubt its congestion either, as most 66's are parked on Ernie's roundabout, a mere 50 metre or so away

[Cazza]

The coordination of services of the INB is pretty poor.

Select the 330, 333, 340 and 66 only, head into the off-peak (e.g. after 10am) and you'll find buses are timetabled to depart pretty close to one another, leaving gaps fairly regularly.

The 66 is every 10 mins throughout the day so it shouldn't be too big a deal.

I think there are bigger fish to fry across the bus network

[Cazza]

I would also like to point out that later on (after 8pm or so) a bus arrives:
:59, :02, :02, :04
then 10 min gap then
:14, :17:, :17, :19
then 10 min gap then
:29, :32, :32, :34
etc. etc. etc.

[Paul B]

Yes. Weekends its usually a bad time stopping there to try to transfer. Apart from wholesale changes, it'd be good to see 2 stopping patterns, 1= stay on busway  2=via the valley
Get rid of the 310/335/346 doing that barry parade crap. either send them via the valley, or keep them on the busway

[achiruel]

370/375/379 perform adequate service between RBWH & valley IMO.

[Paul B]

Current weekend RBWH-Valley frequency @ 8pm weeknight: 8:21 (375) 8:33 (379) 8:53 (370)
if it was 20/40/00 yeah i'd agree 3bph is adequate (just)

[achiruel]

Yes. Weekends its usually a bad time stopping there to try to transfer. Apart from wholesale changes, it'd be good to see 2 stopping patterns, 1= stay on busway  2=via the valley
Get rid of the 310/335/346 doing that barry parade crap. either send them via the valley, or keep them on the busway

Having thought about it a bit, I'd actually like to see three stopping patterns from RBWH to City:

1. Busway
2. Brunswick/Ann St (via Valley)
3. Water St/Little Edward St/Upper Edward St (via Spring Hill)

I think it's about time Spring Hill had a bus route with decent frequency including night-time. The 30 loop finishes @ 7pm and doesn't run on weekends at all. The 320/301 along St Paul's Tce has a combined 3 bph outside peak but on a 30/6/24 minute cycle, and on Saturdays the 320 runs ever 90 minutes and on Sundays the 320 runs every 80 minutes. Ridiculous frequencies. The 321 serves Gregory Tce and runs hourly apart from a couple of extra peak services Mon-Fri and finishes at 6pm. On Saturdays it runs from roughy 8-5 and on Sundays, nada.

Maybe there's a reason buses don't use Water St that I'm unaware of. I thought it made sense, roughly halfway between St Paul's Tce and Gregory Tce, so it serves the greater area. Gregory Tce largely serves Victoria Park on one side. St Paul's Tce might be ok, but you can't turn right from Brunswick St->St Paul's Tce, so a dogleg via Amelia St would be required.

Current weekend RBWH-Valley frequency @ 8pm weeknight: 8:21 (375) 8:33 (379) 8:53 (370)
if it was 20/40/00 yeah i'd agree 3bph is adequate (just)

Yes, you're absolutely right, I stupidly didn't consider the night-time/weekend frequencies.

So how about:

330 BUZ via Busway, stop at 333 stops Chermside-RBWH.
340 BUZ via Spring Hill (it can still get on to Riverside Expressway to Woolloongabba), stop at 333 stops Chermside-RBWH.
333 BUZ via Valley, add a few more stops to 333 if required, but don't be ridiculous (e.g. Stop 19 & 20 Lutwyche Rd, 190m apart, really???)
370 can die, P332 can die too. Seems a large pointless/duplicating route.
P331 can run on current express pattern, probably enough patronage during peak to justify express runing.
375 resources can be reallocated to make 369 a proper crosstown BUZ, but extend to Chermside via 308 routing (regular service between Toombul and Chermside rather than the random 322/GCL that currently exists).

[James]

In the short term - the timetables need fixing. The network would run far more efficiently if a simple re-write was undertaken. Getting more complex:

Having thought about it a bit, I'd actually like to see three stopping patterns from RBWH to City:

1. Busway
2. Brunswick/Ann St (via Valley)
3. Water St/Little Edward St/Upper Edward St (via Spring Hill)

I think it's about time Spring Hill had a bus route with decent frequency including night-time. The 30 loop finishes @ 7pm and doesn't run on weekends at all. The 320/301 along St Paul's Tce has a combined 3 bph outside peak but on a 30/6/24 minute cycle, and on Saturdays the 320 runs ever 90 minutes and on Sundays the 320 runs every 80 minutes. Ridiculous frequencies. The 321 serves Gregory Tce and runs hourly apart from a couple of extra peak services Mon-Fri and finishes at 6pm. On Saturdays it runs from roughy 8-5 and on Sundays, nada.

Maybe there's a reason buses don't use Water St that I'm unaware of. I thought it made sense, roughly halfway between St Paul's Tce and Gregory Tce, so it serves the greater area. Gregory Tce largely serves Victoria Park on one side. St Paul's Tce might be ok, but you can't turn right from Brunswick St->St Paul's Tce, so a dogleg via Amelia St would be required.

Current weekend RBWH-Valley frequency @ 8pm weeknight: 8:21 (375) 8:33 (379) 8:53 (370)
if it was 20/40/00 yeah i'd agree 3bph is adequate (just)

Yes, you're absolutely right, I stupidly didn't consider the night-time/weekend frequencies.

So how about:

330 BUZ via Busway, stop at 333 stops Chermside-RBWH.
340 BUZ via Spring Hill (it can still get on to Riverside Expressway to Woolloongabba), stop at 333 stops Chermside-RBWH.
333 BUZ via Valley, add a few more stops to 333 if required, but don't be ridiculous (e.g. Stop 19 & 20 Lutwyche Rd, 190m apart, really???)
370 can die, P332 can die too. Seems a large pointless/duplicating route.
P331 can run on current express pattern, probably enough patronage during peak to justify express runing.
375 resources can be reallocated to make 369 a proper crosstown BUZ, but extend to Chermside via 308 routing (regular service between Toombul and Chermside rather than the random 322/GCL that currently exists).

I'm not sure if you would want the three Gympie Road BUZ services all going different ways leaving the CBD. It would significantly decrease legibility and you have the issue of having various waiting points for the same service which are a big gripe along other corridors - e.g. Old Cleveland Road, Coronation Drive.

Instead, you'd be better off:
1. Merging the 330 and 333 (running short-running 330s as required).
2. Cutting the 370 and introducing rational stop spacing along Gympie Road, allowing the 330 to cover that.
3. Replace the 375 with the 369 on BUZ frequency, linking in with the 330.
4. Delete the 346 and 353.
5. Merge the resources used for the 321 into the 320.

With these resources, you would:
1. Run the 333 Bracken Ridge via Chermside via the INB and Northern Busways - interpeak this route could run at 8bph now the 330, 333, 340 and 370 are all combined into one route.
2. BUZ the 325 (or similar) and run it via Spring Hill (Water Street & Upper Edward Street) then the current 325 after RBWH.
3. Timetable the 320 & 379 to have a 15 minute frequency between Fortitude Valley & RBWH 7am - 7pm 7 days per week and 10 minute frequency in the peaks. The 320 can link into the existing route via Gympie Road & Albion Road.
4. Cover the areas which lost out from the 340 removal with some sort of feeder route.

Peak-hour rockets wouldn't be needed with this set-up as a common interchange point (RBWH) is established. With a bus every 10 minutes or better in the peak for most journeys, this won't be a problem any more.

If the "all stops" service along Gympie Road is holy, this need can be fulfilled by the 334. The route is already slow and windy enough.