Bus Routes which need fixing

[stephenk]

Yes, I used to think Exhibition line was a waste of time.
But that is if you only see what is there now. It's what you don't see, and what one could see (which could be part of a bigger picture) then it begins to make a lot of sense.

You are not making any sense!  

Aside from running services to Exhibition that already enter/exit service at Roma Street, using the Ekka Loop would be an operational nightmare, decrease network capacity, and decrease network reliability.  



The most effective solution to solve the Herston public transport issues would be to significantly ramp up bus services to RCH/RBWH.

[Jon Bryant]

The demand for public transport in the next 10 to 15 as petrol prices soar is going to mean we need to create a highly interconnected network where people jump off and on different services.  There is a need for a multiple links between the bus and train networks. The inner city is going to feel the pressure the most.  We need to remove today's bottle necks and choke points as they are only going to get worse.  The exhibition line is already there and solutions need to be found to make it work.  This will include solution to separate freight lines.

[stephenk]

The exhibition line is already there and solutions need to be found to make it work. 

The solution to make it work for passenger transport would not be cost effective, as there would be a huge cost (widening, flyovers, flyunders at each end) for little benefit (to serve one non-CBD station). Cross City Rail project is far more cost effective for increasing network capacity, and improving bus services on the INB would be a much more cost effective short term solution.

[#Metro]

Well that may be true. If there wasn't a "diving under Fairfield" tunnel option, that could cut costs dramatically.
And if little or no tunneling from Under Central was required that would reduce costs even more.

The ICRCS is a hugely expensive proposal already. To think that anything will be done in 6 years (2016), with everything that has happened, is just pie-in-the sky.

Value can be captured by TOD development around these new stations, and Mayne SuperTOD.
This should be done in stages, with small parcels made available first under the QLD Gov ULDA so that the values of adjacent empty land increases as new buildings and services are built.

I'm not suggesting that stations at Spring Hill or Exhibition are "not viable". They are, or otherwise they would not feature in the ICRCS. Its how to get to the station (via tunnel) or existing option that I'm questioning.

BTW, perhaps Brisbane should consider a Rail bypass for the freight.

[#Metro]

And in the very distant future, if a line were to go to The Gap, it would be very handy.
See the BURL thread.

[ozbob]

Re rail bypass for freight.

Old letter to editor

Published Courier Mail December 15  2007

The derailment at Petrie has again highlighted the increasing congestion problems of mixing freight and suburban passenger rail services.  As Citytrain services are ramped up it will become very difficult to provide around the clock access for freight trains on the present railway network through Brisbane.

Consideration should be given to building a western rail loop which could be used for freight trains, essentially independent of the suburban network.

A possible general route would be Caboolture, Dayboro, Fernvale, Ipswich, Bromelton.  Bromelton is ideally situated for a major freight interchange distribution centre as it is on the standard gauge railway from the south.  It is interesting to note that both Dayboro and Fernvale were once serviced by Queensland Railway branch lines.

Now is the time for the real big rail decisions and investment.

[#Metro]

BURL Thread for diagram --> http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3281.msg20050#msg20050

[O_128]

BURL Thread for diagram --> http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3281.msg20050#msg20050

Are you by any chance a town planner? all your ideas are researched well and make sense =]

[longboi]

How would this loop service operate? How frequent would it be? What stations would it service?

The problem with capacity isn't to do with the amount of tracks through Normanby, the problem is the conflicting moves that occur when trains enter/exit Normanby at the Roma St Fork and not to mention the bulk of trains entering and exiting Mayne also need to use this section.

Who would use this loop? It might be of benefit to some hospital workers and people living in the proposed TOD around Bowen Hills. However it doesn't do anything to increase capacity through the City, in fact it places even more strain on the network. At the moment with current rail frequencies on all other lines, it can take as long as half an hour to get from Exhibition to Central because there are so very few spaces within the timetable which allow any extra train movements.

I'm with Stephenk; cross-river rail is far more important than the exhibition loop.

[#Metro]

Well, criticism was expected. Comments are welcome.

I'm not an expert (or an economics or engineering firm), so go easy on the criticism  (nor a town planner- sorry!).
I know the problems aren't new so I thought maybe someone had tried to solve the problem before.

It is the responsibility of the government to commission and pay for engineering and economic studies,
but that said, these stations roughly appear in the 1970s plan and the ICRCS plan so it would seem worthwhile.

Capacity through the city is increased by breaking the "all trains must pass through central" rule.
Actually is isn't too dissimilar to what all those road bypasses do (ICB, Riverside Expressway), but in rail.
Melbourne style portals exiting onto the Exhibition line from Roma St should take care of the conflicting moves.

Of course all the plans are up in the air. And that metro might complement the ICRCS because it would take a large bulk of people away from using heavy rail while providing metro frequency services to places which do not have it and are outside the reach of the ICRCS (Kelvin Grove, UQ, Newstead etc etc). Imagine turning up to Central to find that you could have a seat!

Though for anything to be built within 6 years would require DFI (divine financial intervention)...

Post your own plan if you don't agree with mine. 

[#Metro]

Comments are best posted to the BURL thread. Thanks

[stephenk]

Melbourne style portals exiting onto the Exhibition line from Roma St should take care of the conflicting moves.

But this is the problem. These would cost $$$$$, for the benefit of running to one station. Building a flyover or flyunder at Roma Street is actually quite difficult due to available space, land use, existing obstacles, required gradients. Running passenger trains via Exhibition (other than trains exiting entering service at Roma Street) would NOT increase network capacity, and would restrict freight capacity. So why bother, when other solutions have far more benefit?

Post your own plan if you don't agree with mine. 

I don't need to. I agree with the ICRCS (with the exception of no interchange at Central).

[#Metro]

So why bother, when other solutions have far more benefit?

There is no harm in putting the idea in the mix or discussing it.
The worst that can happen is that it gets dropped.

[stephenk]

Back on topic. Another work colleague has gone back to driving after a 45min wait to get on the Northern Busway at RCH Herston.

[ozbob]

Media Release 26 January 2010

SEQ: Inner northern busway delays drive commuters back to cars

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport commuters has again called for an increase in bus frequency on the Inner Northern Busway (1), and a new bus route based on a combined 109 and 66 routes (2).

Robert Dow, spokesperson for RAIL Back On Track said:

"RAIL Back On Track members, observations and public feedback have reported constant overloading and long waits for buses to board between the new busway station at RBWH, RCH Herston, QUT Kelvin Grove, and the CBD (3,4). During the past 5 months now some passengers have had to wait up to 50 minutes at RCH Herston to board a bus!  Acceptable? Of course not! Given the RBWH's serious parking problems, this has been a great chance to get people to switch to public transport, wasted!"

"Many commuters are now tired of the long waits to board a bus and have gone back to cars.  This is just adding to congestion and environmental impacts.  Why are bus commuters being treated in such an off hand manner?  Promises of increased services following the fare price rises have not been delivered. The grandstanding and spin that accompanied the launch of the then new busway has evaporated into despair."

"One solution would for the route 66 bus to be extended to RBWH and increased in frequency.  The introduction of a new additional bus route utilising the new and existing busways, essentially a combined route 66 and 109 would provide a one seat connection between all the major medical campuses in Brisbane, and UQ and QUT Kelvin Grove and assist in the overloads (5)."

"The problems of passengers not being able to board buses in timely manner is not encouraging continued use of public transport. The huge public transport infrastructure investment demands maximum use of the asset. The INB has turned into a farce of the highest order."

"Government and  TransLink need to focus on service delivery and properly resource the operators. There is now a distinct community impression of inaction in terms of addressing the obvious service shortfalls on bus and rail."

"Increasingly, public transport commuters are just left to blunder on hoping that today is their lucky day and they can squeeze on a bus or train first time, and now paying a lot more for the wait! Can something  be done to fix this appalling situation please?"

References:

1.  6 Sep 2009: SEQ: Bus is busted! http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2709.0

2.  15 Aug 2009: SEQ: Bring on the Buz!   http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2613.0

3.  SEQ: New busways are 'not buz-ing'!   http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2558.msg12540#msg12540

4.  Bus Routes which need fixing   http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2542.msg13534#msg13534

5.  SEQ: Where's our Buz?   http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2538.0

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[somebody]

I think some of the problem is the multi-agency arrangements.  What I mean is if Translink owned BT and all the other operators, they could be much more responsive to these sorts of issues.  It's always been my theory that the reason there's so few counter peak services is that if they were revenue services TL would be paying, but as empties, the operator pays.  I still think it's criminal that empty services run past the crowds on the busway rather than putting them into service, though.

I don't need to. I agree with the ICRCS (with the exception of no interchange at Central).

How should this be achieved?  Moving the Edward St station, or having both stations?  Or something else?

[#Metro]

What I mean is if Translink owned BT and all the other operators, they could be much more responsive to these sorts of issues.

Does this mean QR Passenger would disappear and be run by TL?
I'm needing convincing. Putting more functions in the hands of TL when they have issues with what they currently have...

I still think it's criminal that empty services run counter to the crowds on the busway rather than putting them into service, though.

It is such a crime! It is even worse when the service is PAID and running empty. Route 66!

[Sir Loin]

I still think it's criminal that empty services run counter to the crowds on the busway rather than putting them into service, though.

It is such a crime! It is even worse when the service is PAID and running empty. Route 66!

I'm not going to go on about this anymore but what was happening over Nov-Early Jan highlighted the lack of plain common sense.

Why would you run the large bendy buses on route 66 when it is less than half full during Uni holidays, meanwhile people wanting to get to the bus to and from the hospital are still battling to get onto a bus?

[somebody]

Does this mean QR Passenger would disappear and be run by TL?

No.  I didn't include my view that QR shouldn't need to depend on TL funding, but be 100% directly funded, while allowing TL to collect the ticket revenue.

[Otto]

I'm not going to go on about this anymore but what was happening over Nov-Early Jan highlighted the lack of plain common sense.

Why would you run the large bendy buses on route 66 when it is less than half full during Uni holidays, meanwhile people wanting to get to the bus to and from the hospital are still battling to get onto a bus?

.
One problem with the buses passing RBWH would be that the drivers wont possess a HR class license to drive a bendy bus. Only Depots where all drivers have a HR license are Garden City, Willawong and Larapinta, all based on the SouthSide..

[verbatim9]

I'm not going to go on about this anymore but what was happening over Nov-Early Jan highlighted the lack of plain common sense.

Why would you run the large bendy buses on route 66 when it is less than half full during Uni holidays, meanwhile people wanting to get to the bus to and from the hospital are still battling to get onto a bus?

.
One problem with the buses passing RBWH would be that the drivers wont possess a HR class license to drive a bendy bus. Only Depots where all drivers have a HR license are Garden City, Willawong and Larapinta, all based on the SouthSide..

Oh! is that why they will not put articulated busses on the Northside. I once wrote a letter to Translink requesting the route 333 to have articulated busses during peak times to alleviate overcrowding. They replied with saying the service is quite adequate during peak times?

[somebody]

Oh! is that why they will not put articulated busses on the Northside. I once wrote a letter to Translink requesting the route 333 to have articulated busses during peak times to alleviate overcrowding. They replied with saying the service is quite adequate during peak times?

In what direction were they talking about?  Let's hope in the peak direction.

[somebody]

I received a second reply about my most recent Northern Busway complaint, this time from Brisbane Transport:-

"Thank you for contacting TransLink regarding alterations to route 66.

As you may be aware, TransLink undertook an investigation into the matters you raised. In consulting with our delivery partner, we were provided with the below information:

Brisbane Transport thank you for your suggestion to extend route 66 to the RCH and the RWBH. However, Brisbane Transport operates on contract to TransLink and the decision-making process is  currently  with TransLink.  When a decision has been made, the announcement will be made through the media and will be on the TransLink Website.  We apologise for the inconvenience that this has caused you however there are many factors to take into consideration before alterations to this route occur."

According to this graphic: http://download.translink.com.au/about/091028_complaintsmanagement.pdf
You are supposed to be given the option to escalate your complaint up the chain to the Customer Service Manager, and then the CEO.  If you still aren't satisfied, you can then go to the Ombudsman.

I would presume that this procedure was not followed.  It certainly wasn't when I complained.

[somebody]

Excellent thread,  I will forward the information to the authorities in due course.

Can I ask if anything has happenned with "forwarding the information to the authorities"?

Route 374 only runs 7-8 services in peak direction morning/night. It is often empty and gets caught in CBD traffic.  Passengers at Paddington let this service pass in order to get the 385 (often as they do with the 375).

I have already suggested to Council that the 374 becomes a 'sister' buz service to the 385 and run express stops via the Terraces (Latrobe,Given, Caxton) in Paddington via the INB and terminate at KGS.  This would improve service to Paddington, Bardon, Ashgrove and The Gap by drastically improving the 385 service.  It would also be a massive money spinner for Council as it would be extremely heavily patronised in and out of peak in both directions.

Found these comments when looking for Ozbob's comment above.

Seems obvious the reason why you'd let a 374/375 go by if you are at a stop which supposedly has a soon arriving 385.  The 385 accesses the city in KGSBS, which is HEAPS faster than the Herschel St/North Quay/Adelaide St route.  It's worth waiting about 5 minutes for a 385.  Heading outbound it's even worse, as you have to go to a completely different stop to pick up the 374/375.  Why would you want to?  I think the priority, though, would be to move the 374 into KGSBS rather than any tinkering with the 375.  At least that would get a few people to use it.  There's reasons to use the 375 anyway.  A nice to have might have been a southbound bus lane on George St, like on Upper Roma St, but I think that would cause too much traffic problems to ever be implemented.

[somebody]

Thought of a problem with 66+109: Are the bays at UQ Lakes long enough for a bendy bus?  One would think that they should be, with such high frequency routes operating to there.

[ozbob]

Can I ask if anything has happened with "forwarding the information to the authorities"?

Yes, publicly via media and privately via meetings.  What the authorities do from there is their call ..

[ozbob]

Thought of a problem with 66+109: Are the bays at UQ Lakes long enough for a bendy bus?  One would think that they should be, with such high frequency routes operating to there.

From what I recall wouldn't be a problem, and I believe there is some more work scheduled for there in terms of expansion of bays as well.

[somebody]

Thought of a problem with 66+109: Are the bays at UQ Lakes long enough for a bendy bus?  One would think that they should be, with such high frequency routes operating to there.

From what I recall wouldn't be a problem, and I believe there is some more work scheduled for there in terms of expansion of bays as well.

Perhaps it just requires a short reversing move for the bus in the bay behind to leave if it leaves first.

[somebody]

Actually the routing of the 109 via PA Hospital actually seems quite useless without it serving Roma St.  To get from Roma St to PA Hospital could always be done with a change, and nothing has changed with that.  66+109 would allow northside or Ipswich line people to get to PA Hospital reasonably easily.  Is there a case for giving Corinda (or Ipswich) via Tennyson a decent service to make these trips easy?

[somebody]

Another wierd one would be the 412/402.  I'd suggest making the 412 a BUZ, but converting all the "University Semester only" trips into 402 workings.  Also, instead of the 402 stopping all stops, it should be non stop.  I think the last thing was proposed a couple of pages ago.

[#Metro]

St Lucia should be given a local service. I floated this a while back.
St Lucia is high density with lots of students, so it would be a good fit for increased PT levels...

[somebody]

St Lucia should be given a local service. I floated this a while back.
St Lucia is high density with lots of students, so it would be a good fit for increased PT levels...

What do you mean?  A service to the shops at the Gailey Rd five ways or something?

[stephenk]

Actually the routing of the 109 via PA Hospital actually seems quite useless without it serving Roma St.  To get from Roma St to PA Hospital could always be done with a change, and nothing has changed with that. 

The current terminus of the 109 is not the best location, and means that the 109 doesn't integrate well with Ipswich and Northern train services. Running via the Inner Northern Busway to Roma Street would be considerably more useful.

[#Metro]

I agree. 66 + 109 would fix that. It might rival 199's patronage.

There must be a reason why Translink is appears to be avoiding the merge. The question is why?
109 is getting a boost and so is 66. 109 could run via Woolloongabba now (if they absolutely wanted to retain it).
IMHO cut the Gabba, everyone can catch BUZ 200 or 209

[somebody]

I agree. 66 + 109 would fix that. It might rival 199's patronage.

There must be a reason why Translink is appears to be avoiding the merge. The question is why?

One problem would be that would mean you can't get a direct service between Roma St and the Gabba.  That's why you need to extend another route from the Cultural Centre.

This problem is more severe due to the truncation of most peak train services from the north at Roma St

Yes, publicly via media and privately via meetings.  What the authorities do from there is their call ..

Do they give feedback as to "Why not?" in those meetings.

[ozbob]

Do they give feedback as to "Why not?" in those meetings.

Generally no.  Most things need to be looked at depth, and policy decision making is a closed process to the likes of us. 
But I am grateful for at least having the opportunity to raise issues.

The Minister stated clearly when announcing the bus changes for this Monday that commuter feedback has driven much of the 66 and 109 changes.  Commuter feedback comes from a variety of processes, constituents writing to the Minister, MPs and TransLink, efforts by groups such as ours, consultation by operators and TransLink, feedback to operators, letters to the editor, talk back radio and so forth.  The best you can hope for is to be listened too, every idea and suggestion is not going to get up, but in the big picture hopefully contributes to improved outcomes.

That is the way it is ..

[#Metro]

One problem would be that would mean you can't get a direct service between Roma St and the Gabba.  That's why you need to extend another route from the Cultural Centre.

Yes, but then you can't get a one seat ride from Roma St to to UQ Lakes.
And it is very easy to show that when the 66 gets to Wooloongabba the bus is mainly carrying air.

[somebody]

One problem would be that would mean you can't get a direct service between Roma St and the Gabba.  That's why you need to extend another route from the Cultural Centre.

Yes, but then you can't get a one seat ride from Roma St to to UQ Lakes.
And it is very easy to show that when the 66 gets to Wooloongabba the bus is mainly carrying air.

No, but in many cases you can merely remain on the train to Toowong or South Bank which avoids double changing for many.  You don't have those options if you are coming from Caboolture to the Gabba.

I've heard reports that in the AM peak it leaves the Gabba with quite a few people.  Not having been there at that time,  I couldn't comment.

That is the way it is ..

I guess so.  I'm just really annoyed with Translink's whole attitude to doing the job it is paid to do.

[#Metro]

It does not have to be an either/or solution.
It is possible to do a trip to Wooloongabba and use the turnaround to continue to UQ Lakes.
Alternatively there could be a separate route that does the 66 + 109 job.

There are plenty of buses that go via Woolloongabba, many of them express to the CBD via the Expressway and a BUZ 200 plus lots of other small routes and the Ipswich Rd services.

In contrast there is only one bus that goes from UQ Lakes to the CBD via the busway, and that is 109.
If you are a Northside person, it is going to be a little more of an effort...

[stephenk]

My latest complaint to Translink

"Yesterday (Wed 3rd March), I used the Northern Busway to travel from RCH Herston to Roma Street to connect with a train. At RCH Herston a 333 bus passed through without stopping despite having spare capacity. I thus had to wait for the next bus, a 66. Unfortunately this bus then broke down outside Roma Street (around 4:20pm), resulting in me missing my connecting train. As the driver did not restart the Go Card readers properly, I then incurred a fix fare as I could not swipe off at Roma Street. Thus the failure of the 333 to stop, resulted in me both missing my connection, and incurring a financial penalty to myself (10+ minute phonecall) for no fault of my own. This brings up two issues:

1) Just because the 66 is now running on the Northern Busway does not mean that the 330/333/340 can pass through stops when they are not full. These buses passing through stops is not making full use of the busway's capacity, is increasing waiting times, and will result in overcrowding again sooner rather than later.

2) There needs to be either a free post or free phone number for people who have incurred Go-Card problems through no fault of their own to get their refund. It is unfair that passengers have to pay to make a phone call to get refunds that have occurred on their Go-Card due to equipment faults - it's a bit like someone stealing your wallet and then making you pay to get it back! "