Bus Routes which need fixing

[#Metro]

Hi

Do you think that it could use the new PA busway station?

[somebody]

Pick me, Pick me!!!
(1) After 7:30pm on a weekday the 453 and 454 services drop back to hourly.  Wouldn't it be better to scrap these and instead run a half hourly 450.  This probably applies at any time of day frequency is less than 15 minutes
(2) The 444 would probably be faster going via Jephson St and Milton Rd than the present route via Coronation Drive.  This would also improve the service on Milton Rd dramatically, maybe enough to not need the 470 and Coronation Drive would still get plenty of busses.  Access to the busway is easier from Milton Rd.  I could also swallow the fact that the 444 stops in a completely different place in the city if it worked this way.
(3) The 385 is too slow in peak hour.

These are more general comments than particular routes:
(4) There is no peak priority whatsoever for the 4xx busses west of Petrie Terrace
(5) It seems that the basis of getting into King George Square Bus Station is "Are you a BUZ service".  This is a fundamentally flawed rationale.  All services which come from Normanby Busway Station should be able to access it, as accessing the portal at the Ann St end of Roma St is very slow.  That means the 325, 343, 351, 357, 363, 376, 359, 390 and 680 should all get in to King George Square if possible.
(6) Busses sharing a significant part of the same run should come from roughly the same place.  Currently there are 3 places to go to get a bus to Indooroopilly: KGSBS, QSBS and Adelaide St.  This is very annoying.  There's also two places off peak for busses to The Gap (KGSBS and Adelaide St), and I think 4 places in the peak.
(7a) Before 9am the 4xx CityExpress busses access Queen St Bus Station via North Quay, when they would clearly be better off turning left on to Skew St and using the busway much like the 444 and rocket services do.  There's really no reason for the present arrangements.
(7b) This is a radical idea and would make 7a improbable: What about running the Musgrave Rd and Caxton St services through the busway to Queen St Bus Station Platform B in the inbound direction, then out via the Cultural Centre and Grey St?  Makes the best possible use of Platform B, and allows co-locating all the services to The Gap excerpt for "City Precincts" services.  Major problems are increased congestion in the PM peak at the Cultural Centre, but this could be compensated for by truncating other routes, like the 330 and 340 at the KGSBS, and a slightly slower trip outbound for the 385.  The latter is at least a little bit made up for by greater frequency so long as the 380/381/385 timetables are co-ordinated, and greater convenience for the majority of the QSBS.  I envisage that the 350/352/377/378/380/381/382/383/385 and probably some others I have missed could access the city this way.

[ozbob]

Welcome somebody!   Thanks for your comments!

Regards
Bob

[david]

(1) After 7:30pm on a weekday the 453 and 454 services drop back to hourly.  Wouldn't it be better to scrap these and instead run a half hourly 450.  This probably applies at any time of day frequency is less than 15 minutes
(2) The 444 would probably be faster going via Jephson St and Milton Rd than the present route via Coronation Drive.  This would also improve the service on Milton Rd dramatically, maybe enough to not need the 470 and Coronation Drive would still get plenty of busses.  Access to the busway is easier from Milton Rd.  I could also swallow the fact that the 444 stops in a completely different place in the city if it worked this way.

I would like to add to this idea

450 - New BUZ route. Remove 453 route. Alter 454 to operate at peak times to Indooroopilly only. Riverhills passengers who would like a quicker trip to the City, Toowong or Indooroopilly can catch the 452 out to Darra station and connect with a train

444BUZ, 450BUZ - The 444 BUZ should keep its Coro Drive route. The 450 BUZ should use the following route - (L) Sylvan Road, (R) Croydon Street, (R) Milton Road, (R) Upper Roma St, (L) into busway portal, Roma St Station, Stop 2C KGS station, terminates Cultural Centre.

As for the other western express buses, perhaps the journey will become quicker when the Hale St Bridge opens...

[#Metro]

There is no peak priority whatsoever for the 4xx busses west of Petrie Terrace

This is a real problem. Not even bus lanes or anything! Western Busway

[david]

A Western busway would revolutionise bus services in the western suburbs (if Translink does its planning correctly). A busway from Normanby to Toowong should be built side-by-side with the Northern Link tunnel, as Stage 1, and when demand requires, Stage 2 from Toowong to Indooroopilly. A Stage 3 from Indooroopilly to Mt Ommaney should be planned for, and land bought when available, but I can't see massive demand for it, at least until around 2020.

As for re-routing buses into any proposed Western busway, ideas would be endless...

[somebody]

450 - New BUZ route. Remove 453 route. Alter 454 to operate at peak times to Indooroopilly only. Riverhills passengers who would like a quicker trip to the City, Toowong or Indooroopilly can catch the 452 out to Darra station and connect with a train

I thought about this, but rejected the idea for two reasons, (a) Budgets at the moment are tight and (b) The route isn't that busy really

444BUZ, 450BUZ - The 444 BUZ should keep its Coro Drive route. The 450 BUZ should use the following route - (L) Sylvan Road, (R) Croydon Street, (R) Milton Road, (R) Upper Roma St, (L) into busway portal, Roma St Station, Stop 2C KGS station, terminates Cultural Centre.

As for the other western express buses, perhaps the journey will become quicker when the Hale St Bridge opens...

Got any supporting arguments for the statement that the 444 should stick to Coro Dr?

Re: 450BUZ, Why would you go through Toowong Village then Silvan Rd?  That's heaps slower and if you stop on Jephson St near Sherwood Rd it's a pretty short walk to Toowong Village/Royal Exchange.  Sure, the N464 does it this way, but that run (a) is not transit time sensitive (b) sometimes picks up at the RE against policy (c) gets an increased drop off area from doing it this way and (d) it's probably still stupid for it to do it that way

Presumably when the Hale St link opens the 4xx Expresses won't need to use Cribb St

[david]

Got any supporting arguments for the statement that the 444 should stick to Coro Dr?

I still think that Coro Drive deserves a BUZ route, simply because they have already put one there. To remove the 444 BUZ from Coro Drive would create some unhappy passengers. I don't have any numbers for the popularity of Coro Drive, but I'd imagine that it would be pretty popular, because of all the businesses along that road. If they hadn't put it there, then I would support the diversion onto Milton Road fully.

Re: 450BUZ, Why would you go through Toowong Village then Silvan Rd?  That's heaps slower and if you stop on Jephson St near Sherwood Rd it's a pretty short walk to Toowong Village/Royal Exchange.  Sure, the N464 does it this way, but that run (a) is not transit time sensitive (b) sometimes picks up at the RE against policy (c) gets an increased drop off area from doing it this way and (d) it's probably still stupid for it to do it that way

I don't think that we want to create ANOTHER bus stop at Toowong. There are already too many bus stops (one set along High St and another set for the uni buses on Benson St, not to mention the 416/470 terminus). This problem could possibly sort itself out with a new bus interchange/busway station, but in the meantime, we should keep the buses stopping at one stop so that passengers don't get confused.

With regards to the 450 BUZ I proposed - Firstly, the 440 route wasn't that busy when it was converted to the 444 BUZ (showing that if you provide it, they'll come) and secondly, I find that it could help reduce that terrible peak-hour congestion on the Centenary Hwy. I realise that money is short at the moment, so I would probably keep the 450 BUZ proposal on hold until around 2012 and implement the earlier suggestions that I had for the 45x buses.

[somebody]

I still think that Coro Drive deserves a BUZ route, simply because they have already put one there. To remove the 444 BUZ from Coro Drive would create some unhappy passengers. I don't have any numbers for the popularity of Coro Drive, but I'd imagine that it would be pretty popular, because of all the businesses along that road. If they hadn't put it there, then I would support the diversion onto Milton Road fully.

Ok, but you would still have 425/430/433/450/460 from High St on Sundays and a couple more routes on other days, not to mention 411/412/417 from Benson St.  You should have at least 15 minute frequency from both stops.  I've noticed a few passengers getting on/off on Coro, but all the stops combined would probably be less busy than Indooroopilly, maybe more busy than Toowong.

I don't think that we want to create ANOTHER bus stop at Toowong.

That's a pretty fair point.  

EDIT: I've just read that when Coro Dr goes to one lane each way for construction of the Hale St link, there will also be an inbound bus lane.  So I retract my earlier comment.  The busses should remain on Coro to take advantage of this.

With regards to the 450 BUZ I proposed - Firstly, the 440 route wasn't that busy when it was converted to the 444 BUZ (showing that if you provide it, they'll come) and secondly, I find that it could help reduce that terrible peak-hour congestion on the Centenary Hwy. I realise that money is short at the moment, so I would probably keep the 450 BUZ proposal on hold until around 2012 and implement the earlier suggestions that I had for the 45x buses.

How much of the 444's load has just been stolen from other busses though?  Often inbound busses pull in to Indro almost empty and outbound busses go out almost empty.  I do agree, though, that the 444 is the most likely to be busy west of Indro.  Not sure if it's still busy west of Kenmore.

[somebody]

Southside
Abolish 109, replace with extended 66. Routes 104, 105, 108 and 107 are a mess and should all be reviewed and re-routed. They are an important link between the Beenleigh-Ipswich lines, as the Tennyson trains rarely run, and also Indooroopilly.

Not a bad suggestion to combine the 66 and 109, but it means a sizeable reduction in service at Woollongabba.  It would probably result in less transfers to the 109 at the busway stations.

Route 105 does a massive time wasting loop (10-15 min?) in Yeronga, this loop should be cut off and funds used to re-route and upgrade 107 or 108. Route 105 should also stop directly outside the Tennyson tennis centre front entrance- where there are high density residential towers and tennis centre patrons. Unfortunately, it currently runs around the perimeter of the Tennis Centre precinct, so far away that it almost deliberately looks like it wants to keep away from passengers! Consider possibility of 105 doing a loop over the Eleanor Schonell Bridge to UQ and using the busway tunnel.

Route 108- has two or three services a day only. If route 105 were abolished, these routes should be transferred to route 108.

107- Re-route this as a lot of its trip is running along parkland where nobody lives! This route should run a 'hairpin' shaped route (similar to the current 105) through Yeronga to terminate at Yeronga Station/shopping centre/RSL. It would pass but not terminate at Wanganui river gardens.

In off peak times the 105 replaces the 107 & 108.  What's wrong with that?

A bus route for Indooroopilly-Swann Rd-Gailey fiveways and then as per route 411 to the city when 427/428 is not running or when there are gaps. Swann Rd is full of students in higher density buildings, and they have to change at Indooroopilly/UQ to go to the city or wait for the infrequent 411.

This route more or less exists, it's the 417, but it's not exactly a frequent or busy one.

412 - This bus really needs to terminate at King George Square station, if the 66 extension idea goes ahead. I have thought of a fairly efficient way of the 412 doing so.

I disagree.  Enough routes which would get a huge benefit from accessing the KGSBS haven't been allowed in, why this route which doesn't really get any benefit from it?

No point when you got a underutilised (at least in the off-peak) 4-track railway line along this corridor.   

Well 4 tracks was always going to be underutilised once the Merivale bridge was put in!

Weekday daytime frequency is 15 minutes to Corinda, and loadings are high.  The parts about it that are pretty bad are
(a) Terminating half the services at Corinda when there's a fair few buses connecting 2 stations on at Darra, and some at Oxley too.
(b) Cutting back services to 30 minutes after about 7pm on weekdays and all day on weekends

I suppose what I am saying is that I'm not sure what your point exactly is.

The 402 should be made an express UQ-Toowong shuttle

That does makes sense, I think.

[#Metro]

I think people at UQ need the bus more than people at W/Gabba.

Routes 104/105/107/108 need to be reformed somehow. There are a number of possibilities.
Looping around in Yeronga must be torture for people. A 108 route is more direct, people would consider catching that.

PS: Welcome to the forum 

[haakon]

Not a bad suggestion to combine the 66 and 109, but it means a sizeable reduction in service at Woollongabba.  It would probably result in less transfers to the 109 at the busway stations.

The combined service could loop through the Woollongabba busway station. Currently the 250 does that.

[david]

412 - This bus really needs to terminate at King George Square station, if the 66 extension idea goes ahead. I have thought of a fairly efficient way of the 412 doing so.

I disagree.  Enough routes which would get a huge benefit from accessing the KGSBS haven't been allowed in, why this route which doesn't really get any benefit from it?

This was a conditional idea, with the intention that the 412 terminate at KGS, if the 66 extension went ahead. It would provide one stop for UQ services, increase reliability of services and reduce confusion. It would also help to prevent overcrowding and spread the load, as everyone for UQ would head to KGS and not bother waiting for the 412 at its current stop. If they don't decide to implement the 109+66 route, then the whole idea of the 412 terminating at KGS would be useless.

[somebody]

I think people at UQ need the bus more than people at W/Gabba.

Routes 104/105/107/108 need to be reformed somehow. There are a number of possibilities.
Looping around in Yeronga must be torture for people. A 108 route is more direct, people would consider catching that.

PS: Welcome to the forum 

I think you're correct about the 109/66.  If you need more service at W/Gabba, you could extend the 333 there.

The Yeronga loop is the least of the 105/107/108's worries.  The frequency is only roughly hourly in the week, and it stops running pretty early too.  If you live at Tennyson, you could change for a train at Yeerongpilly, although I guess that does only run half hourly off peak.

[somebody]

I actually left out of my original post the thing which annoys me the most.  On Weekends, the busses to the City from Indooroopilly sequence this way:
:20 460
:22 444
:37 444
:38 433
:38 425

So a 15 minute gap followed by 3 services in the space of a minute!  I'm not sure if there are any services between the :20 460 and the 444 which would come at :07, and also between the 433/425 and the 444 which would come at :52.

Outbound it's not so bad, the 444 leaves KGSBS at :05, :20, :35, :50, and another bus leaves QSBS 5 minutes later generally speaking.

But I will add a few other points:
( The 427/428/432/599/105 and probably a few others do a silly loop at Indoorpilly around the shops to access the bus station when all that is needed is a stop on the other side of Station Rd.  Don't they think passengers can cross the road?
(9) On weekends the 435 truncates at Indooroopilly.  pax are expected to change for another bus.  But if you extended another 500m, you could change for a train which would be faster than the bus anyway, so long as the bus and train are synchronised.
(10) The 468 doesn't run to the city.  Why not? Also, as for the above, it should synchronsie with the train at Indooroopilly.  Doing it Oxley requires pax to backtrack.

[#Metro]

I think Indooroopilly should become a proper busway station located underneath Indoroopilly shopping centre.
I know that they have just spend big $$$ on an upgrade already, but hey, who wants to be run over by a 444 or some other bus?

[somebody]

I think Indooroopilly should become a proper busway station located underneath Indoroopilly shopping centre.
I know that they have just spend big $$$ on an upgrade already, but hey, who wants to be run over by a 444 or some other bus?

Seems very expensive for the benefit, don't you think?

I've thought of a couple of other points relating to Nightlink:
(11) There is no N150 service, even though the N111 could relatively easily be converted to an N150
(12) There is no N444 service
(13) The N464 stays on the freeway in the middle of the night between Jindalee and Dandenong Rd!  I think it should follow the 450 route from the Centenary Bridge until Horizon Dr & Sumners Rd, then turn left onto Sumners Rd and proceed as present to Forest Lake.  That would service the Centenary suburbs much better.  Even if that were deemed to expensive, it shouldn't be too hard to at least service the Windemere & Goggs Rd stops.


Also continuing on from points 9 & 10, some might say that there is no room for a stop near Indooroopilly station, but I think a single bus could fit on Westminster Rd between Station Rd & Coonan St.  Might need to move or shrink the taxi rank in the westbound direction.

[david]

Nightlink buses are particularly tricky to improve, as there are only a limited number of drivers who are willing to work at those terrible times. I agree with converting the N111 to N150 idea as it services the greatest area, plus N555 already has a similar service to the N111.

With the N464, this service should probably be scrapped in favour of a N450. Forest Lake already has the N100, and it wouldn't be too hard to extend it to service the stops the N464 does.

(9) On weekends the 435 truncates at Indooroopilly.  pax are expected to change for another bus.  But if you extended another 500m, you could change for a train which would be faster than the bus anyway, so long as the bus and train are synchronised.
(10) The 468 doesn't run to the city.  Why not? Also, as for the above, it should synchronsie with the train at Indooroopilly.  Doing it Oxley requires pax to backtrack.

They should do a trial where all weekend buses (except for the 444 and maybe the 433) terminate at Indooroopilly train station. Then they should do a survey to gauge public perception.

Also, with the 468, it connects with the 444 at Indooroopilly (whether this occurs by chance or if Translink actually timetabled it like this, I don't know), so it's probably better for it to terminate at Indooroopilly. It probably costs less and improves the reliability of the bus as well. Plus loadings aren't that great (I'm a regular user of the 468) and there is ample connection for trains at Oxley.

I think Indooroopilly should become a proper busway station located underneath Indoroopilly shopping centre.
I know that they have just spend big $$$ on an upgrade already, but hey, who wants to be run over by a 444 or some other bus?

Perhaps a Garden City-like interchange could work? Cityexpress buses could use the busway station, while the local services serve the existing station. Getting everything to fit could prove tricky though.

[somebody]

With the N464, this service should probably be scrapped in favour of a N450. Forest Lake already has the N100, and it wouldn't be too hard to extend it to service the stops the N464 does.

I tend to agree.  It might be a little slower though, but more importantly, a little confusing for pax.

They should do a trial where all weekend buses (except for the 444 and maybe the 433) terminate at Indooroopilly train station. Then they should do a survey to gauge public perception.

Not unless they increase the frequency of the train to more like 10-15 minutes!  The train isn't much faster than the bus on the weekend, but the half hourly frequency is a killer.

I'm a little curious why you've suggested the 433 should be an exception though.

Also, with the 468, it connects with the 444 at Indooroopilly (whether this occurs by chance or if Translink actually timetabled it like this, I don't know), so it's probably better for it to terminate at Indooroopilly. It probably costs less and improves the reliability of the bus as well. Plus loadings aren't that great (I'm a regular user of the 468) and there is ample connection for trains at Oxley.

That could still work.  Going to Oxley is OK if you are near that end of the run, but if you're near the river you have to go backwards to go forwards, and then get on a train which only runs every half hour.

[david]

I suggested the 433 as it is an all-stops bus which follows a slightly different route to the cityexpress buses when it gets to the city. It might be convenient for people to catch the 433 if they are heading to Wickham Tce or Creek St perhaps. Plus it would provide that all-stops service for the stops not serviced by the 444.

[stephenk]

Northern Busway to RBWH has now been open for over a month. Still no increase in bus services. 333 and 66 timetable still missing from Translink website. Up to 50 mins wait to board a bus at RCH Herston reported in the last fortnight.

Given the RBWH's serious parking problems, this has been a great chance to get people to switch to public transport wasted!

[ozbob]

Up to 50 mins wait to board a bus at RCH Herston reported in the last fortnight.

Is that inbound, outbound or both Stephen?

What an appalling situation ..   

[ozbob]

The 66 and 333 PDF Timetables are available, they are out of sequence on the list on the bus timetables.

This would be confusing to users no doubt.

[stephenk]

Up to 50 mins wait to board a bus at RCH Herston reported in the last fortnight.

Is that inbound, outbound or both Stephen?

What an appalling situation ..   

That was pm inbound.

The 66 and 333 PDF Timetables are available, they are out of sequence on the list on the bus timetables.

This would be confusing to users no doubt.

Well it obviously confused me!

[STB]

Pfft, IMO a non-complaint, all you have to do if you want to find the route number, just type in the route number, where it says route or suburb and hit enter.  Or hit Ctrl-F on your keyboard and type the route number, then hit enter.  Either way will bring it up.  It is slightly out of whack of the order it's in, but the main thing is that it is there in the first place.  Most people I would suspect would look up their suburb or general area, rather than typing in the route number as for a non PT user or an occasional PT user who would be more likely to bring up the PDF timetable, would not neccessarily know the route number straight off the bat.

[ozbob]

Yes there are other options STB.  But as demonstrated here some folks have found it confusing.  It is no great issue to put 333 and 66 in the numerical order.  Many people do scan the list, note the numerical order and then assume that if it is not there it is missing.   All part of incremental improvement don't you think?

Cheers
Bob

[somebody]

I would like to add another point:
(14) The 331, 341, 332 and I think a few others all service the RB&WH busway station, in spite of not really being busway services.  In the outbound direction I support this approach.  It co-locates those runs with other runs which have exactly the same stopping pattern and route.  But in the inbound direction this doesn't apply, and it slows the services down to have to do two right hand turns across Bowen Bridge Rd.  They would be better off stopping on the road.

It seems that the powers that be have decided if a route services a busway station, it must do it in both directions.  This is a nice to have, but there are times when it shouldn't be enforced.

[stephenk]

I would like to add another point:
(14) The 331, 341, 332 and I think a few others all service the RB&WH busway station, in spite of not really being busway services.  In the outbound direction I support this approach.  It co-locates those runs with other runs which have exactly the same stopping pattern and route.  But in the inbound direction this doesn't apply, and it slows the services down to have to do two right hand turns across Bowen Bridge Rd.  They would be better off stopping on the road.

It seems that the powers that be have decided if a route services a busway station, it must do it in both directions.  This is a nice to have, but there are times when it shouldn't be enforced.

The inbound services that do not use the INB have probably seen an increased patronage since the opening of RBWH busway, due to passengers getting so fed up waiting for a 330/333/340 that they will just board any random bus heading into the city. Not exactly integrated public transport is it Translink?

[somebody]

The inbound services that do not use the INB have probably seen an increased patronage since the opening of RBWH busway, due to passengers getting so fed up waiting for a 330/333/340 that they will just board any random bus heading into the city. Not exactly integrated public transport is it Translink?

If that's true shouldn't they reduce frequency on the 331/332/341 and increase the 330/333/340?  It's simple.

[stephenk]

The inbound services that do not use the INB have probably seen an increased patronage since the opening of RBWH busway, due to passengers getting so fed up waiting for a 330/333/340 that they will just board any random bus heading into the city. Not exactly integrated public transport is it Translink?

If that's true shouldn't they reduce frequency on the 331/332/341 and increase the 330/333/340?  It's simple.

It's mainly 37x services that people are using instead. The 331 and 332 are inbound am and outbound pm only (I think), and thus not running in the direction that is overcrowded. The services that run from RBWH to the City via Valley are reasonably popular and shouldn't have their frequency reduced.

The fix required is to either extend the 66 to RBWH (and preferably make it pre-pay only to reduce QUT boarding times), re-extend the 393 to Roma St, or extend another frequent service out to RBWH such as the 109 or 111.

[somebody]

The inbound services that do not use the INB have probably seen an increased patronage since the opening of RBWH busway, due to passengers getting so fed up waiting for a 330/333/340 that they will just board any random bus heading into the city. Not exactly integrated public transport is it Translink?

If that's true shouldn't they reduce frequency on the 331/332/341 and increase the 330/333/340?  It's simple.

It's mainly 37x services that people are using instead. The 331 and 332 are inbound am and outbound pm only (I think), and thus not running in the direction that is overcrowded. The services that run from RBWH to the City via Valley are reasonably popular and shouldn't have their frequency reduced.

The fix required is to either extend the 66 to RBWH (and preferably make it pre-pay only to reduce QUT boarding times), re-extend the 393 to Roma St, or extend another frequent service out to RBWH such as the 109 or 111.

Did you say what you meant there?  You just said that into the City in the PM peak and out of the City in the AM peak is where the busway services aren't coping.  I just checked the timetable for the 333 and it's running every 10mins at these times, just like in the peak direction.  I'd be surprised if there are too many busses which are full at RCH Herston heading into the city in the PM peak, so what do we need to extend the 66 for?

[ozbob]

Between City and RBWH the loading is different to normal patterns, due to the large movements to and from RBH and QUT KG and City (transit from south, west, east etc.).

This morning my daughter was unable to board 333 at Roma St outbound full.  Managed to get on a 66 subsequently.

Also in the PM peak, people are not able to board inbound buses at RCH Herston as many are full.   More capacity is needed.  One way might be to extend the 66s.  This was planned but not carried out due to funding restrictions.  At the moment the frequency needs to be improved both directions both peaks particularly.

Stephen can tell you more as he travels on it daily (I think).   I get out there now and then.  

[stephenk]

Did you say what you meant there?  You just said that into the City in the PM peak and out of the City in the AM peak is where the busway services aren't coping.  I just checked the timetable for the 333 and it's running every 10mins at these times, just like in the peak direction.  I'd be surprised if there are too many busses which are full at RCH Herston heading into the city in the PM peak, so what do we need to extend the 66 for?

With a comment like that, do you happen work for Translink? If you don't believe it, turn up at RCH Herston busway station around 4:35pm to try and get to Roma St in a timely manner.

The demand is due to RCH/RBWH hospital workers commuting to/from the CBD, Southside bus routes, and rail lines into Roma Street. This flow is outbound in the am peak, and inbound in the pm peak.

In the am, there are many students traveling to QUT Kelvin Grove and nearby schools. When a 330/333/340 turns up at Roma Street, the bus can fill up to capacity with QUT students, leaving behind RCH/RBWH workers who cannot use the following 66.

In the pm peak, the 333 seems to have issues keeping to schedule and thus large gaps in service often occur. Thus when a bus arrives at RBWH it is often already quite full. The bus then fills to capacity at RBWH, and non-stops RCH Herston. Even when the buses do have space after RBWH, they often fill to capacity at RCH Herston, still leaving some passengers behind.

In the last 7 weeks I have used the Northern Busway inbound from RBWH or RCH Herston in the pm peak 8 times. On 6 of these occasions either I have not been able to board a bus due to it being full, or the bus has filled to capacity after I have boarded and left passengers behind. My longest wait was 37mins. A work colleague has had to wait 50mins for a bus in the last fortnight at RCH Herston. This has been a chronic occurrence since mid-2008, when the 393 was cut back to Normanby.

[somebody]

With a comment like that, do you happen work for Translink? If you don't believe it, turn up at RCH Herston busway station around 4:35pm to try and get to Roma St in a timely manner.

No, I don't work for Translink; it was much easier to ask you.  I've just never been on a 330/333/340.  I think there needs to be some sort of radical change to the way PT is done in Brisbane, just like you probably do.  Would extending the 393 to Roma St or further make that much of a difference?  It only runs every 20mins in the peak, and those people who would use it can presently, and then get on a service from Kelvin Grove Rd to Roma St.  You could do the same thing outbound to RB&WH.  Just get on a 66, and change at QUT KG for a 330/333/340 if those are filled with students getting off at QUT KG.

Does the 370 need to run inbound in peak hour?  You have the 332 servicing more or less the same route.  Could that be sacrificed to increase 333 frequency?

None of the above is saying that the 333 doesn't need more frequency: I really wouldn't know.

[O_128]

[/quote]
I really wouldn't know.
[/quote]

then you really must work for translink 

[stephenk]

Would extending the 393 to Roma St or further make that much of a difference?  It only runs every 20mins in the peak, and those people who would use it can presently, and then get on a service from Kelvin Grove Rd to Roma St. 

Extending the 66 and/or the 393 provides a direct service from RBWH/RCH to the city. People do currently take the 393 and change at QUT for a 66 to the City. However this is not an acceptable situation and is not attractive public transport. It would be like expecting someone to have to change trains on a journey from South Bank to Central!

You could do the same thing outbound to RB&WH.  Just get on a 66, and change at QUT KG for a 330/333/340 if those are filled with students getting off at QUT KG.

Again, that is not an acceptable situation.

None of the above is saying that the 333 doesn't need more frequency

The problem with the 333 is it is unreliable, probably due to traffic. If it's frequency was increased, there is still a high change of delays and thus overcrowding. As the 66 runs on busway only, it is less likely to be delayed. Thus extending a busway only service such as the 66 would probably be a better solution.

[#Metro]

Ok. Looks like a battle between 333 and 444 for worst route....

[Jon Bryant]

Bus lanes immediately along these route will fix them overnight.

[#Metro]

Isn't it great how simple things like that make a big difference. The old trams used to have their own ROW right up to Chermside. History repeating!

[somebody]

People do currently take the 393 and change at QUT for a 66 to the City. However this is not an acceptable situation and is not attractive public transport. It would be like expecting someone to have to change trains on a journey from South Bank to Central!
...
The problem with the 333 is it is unreliable, probably due to traffic. If it's frequency was increased, there is still a high change of delays and thus overcrowding. As the 66 runs on busway only, it is less likely to be delayed. Thus extending a busway only service such as the 66 would probably be a better solution.

They change at QUT?  That only makes sense if they're going to the other side of the river.  But I can't see a bus with a 20min peak frequency extending into the city making a huge difference.  It would probably have to use the Roma St portal and a surface stop in the city too.  Not ideal.

I thought the main problem with the 333 is that it is packed?  Couldn't this be solved at a minimal expense by putting buses into service which are now running empty in the counter peak direction.

I can't believe that the 444 was named as the worst bus route given the reports about the 333!  I've never been denied boarding a 444, (but I don't work in the city), but I hear you can wait up to 50 mins for a 333.  Perhaps the reports are exaggerated.