Joining existing Brisbane bus services into longer routes!

[Tramwayjohn]

I sent the following letter to the "Queensland Times" newspaper. The so called "City Glider" which is reported to be planed without TRANSLINK ticketing is discussed. A number of other issues are raised as well.

John Coyle


******************************************************************************



Sir,

I hope that I have heard incorrectly, but my understanding is, the planned "City
Glider" bus service will not have TRANSLINK ticketing! If so, the service is
doomed to failure, as the public do not like spending their money on tickets
when they may already have a TRANSLINK ticket or "Go Card" with them.

Why should they?

I saw a double deck articulated bus in Canada in 1980. Is 28 years long enough
for Brisbane to catch up with public transport developments, overseas? Perhaps
not. In other areas relating to public transport services, Australia is lagging
behind. However, in Adelaide the tram-train, which is a vehicle designed to
travel on suburban train lines and in the streets, as trams often do, will be
obtained.

How long will it take for the Queensland Government to follow the examples set
in Sydney and Melbourne, by introducing long bus routes? I have suggested that a
series of existing bus routes be linked into single routes. In Brisbane a good
example would be to link the 333 and 111 bus routes. Route 66 and route 109
could also be joined into a useful service. Bus routes 100, 463 and 500, would
provide a Brisbane to Ipswich service if they are linked. I have had to wait for
an hour, when the bus I was traveling on missed what should have been a
connection, by a matter of a few seconds!

I believe that the success of the "Great Circle Line" would be repeated if a
"Great Outer Circle" bus route is introduced! Existing bus routes that operate
from Redbank to Orion Shopping centre, and to Browns Plains, to the Hyperdome
shopping centre, Redland Bay, and Cleveland, are there, waiting, to be joined.

If TRANSLINK or the minister for transport, Rachelle Nolan say that the bus
routes that I have suggested should be joined, would be too long, I would remind
them that the current "Great Circle Line" is a three hour journey!

John Coyle

[#Metro]

Hmm. I would be worried that reliability for routes could be reduced.
This is because the more stops, the more small delays accumulate, especially when dealing with road traffic.
Though this would be less of a problem with busway services, or express/rocket routes.

However, the idea itself is good as there would be less transferring (transfers of any kind introduce time delays/penalties), waiting etc.
I think some key, cross-city routes should be selected for this (something I've written about in the 'Worst routes in Brisbane' thread). These could be North-South, East-West. Or perhaps "Depot to Depot".

For example, excluding the 3-hour 599/598, There are no bus services which run from Garden City to Toowong via the CBD.
There are none which run from Toowong to Carindale. There are none that run from Toowong to East Brisbane. Many of the BUZ routes could *possibly* be combined, as the high frequency could well make up for any delays a single bus may experience.

[STB]

John, the 598 and 599 already have long recovery times at the shopping centres to make up any late running, there is a reason they sit at those shopping centres other than to load and offload passengers.  If it ran on time, you would still need to have recovery time built in somewhere, eg: Route 250, which has recovery time built into the timetable itself and the 5 minute dwell at Capalaba Bus Station.  In reality, the longer the route the more likely it will run late and there are times that they do run late due to many factors including, traffic, passengers etc.  So if the 598 runs perfectly on time, you will end up sitting there for a while anyway, to ensure that that recovery time is allowed and reflected in the overall timetable, as the on time running will vary throughout the day, due to changes in passenger loads/offloads and traffic conditions.

In general Brisbane itself is using the Radial network, while outer suburbs use what's known as the hub and spoke network.  The Hub and Spoke method ensures that the least number of buses that need to go a long distance have the potential to run late due to these factors, and where it cannot be justified running buses to and from areas of low population density, and to also ensure that the kerbside capacity isn't overwhelmed.  It would also be highly unreasonable to extend a route to only suit 2 people who may only travel between say the Hyperdome and Mt Cotton, especially when there is a high frequency route (555) running back and forth between the City and Hyperdome which can connect with that route (282).  There is no need for the route to spoon feed the passengers, just because they may travel 2 or 3 times a week beyond where the route terminates.  Usually the 282 passengers go no further than Hyperdome.  The passengers who do choose to use Public Transport do have a level of responsibility that they will plan the trip themselves to ensure that they minimize transfer times.  It would be silly to confuse the network, and send a high frequency service through an area that is not growing and will never grow, simply because someone doesn't want to wait 5 mins to transfer.  In fact I would put money that in the off peak, 90% of the passengers who come off a local route, go no further than where it terminates.  The peak is different and there are peak hour routes targeted for the increase of passengers who make through routes past where their normal local route terminates.

Can you provide the on time running statistics to justify your argument that longer routes will provide better public transport, as this is one important factor that reflects on the passengers view of public transport and operationally important for operators who run the buses along those routes.  In Sydney and Melbourne, I do know that they have on time running problems with some of their long routes.  The Smartbus routes in Melbourne, run at a frequency similar to Route 555 and mostly on dedicated bus lanes, this does not remove the variable of passengers however, which can contribute to on time running being lost.  I remember a time where the on time running was shot when there was a huge influx of passengers who boarded at Monash University on Smartbus route 900.  Sydney also has many problems with on time running of the services, particularly the Hillsbus service that heads to Castle Hill, Route 610 IIRC, may be incorrect on the route number there, but I know the route I'm talking about.

Yes, I can understand that it would be more convenient for passengers who do make through journeys, to extend the bus route, but it does come at a cost, both in $ to the Government and in the overall running of the service itself, both operationally and planning wise.  In fact, I would not be surprised if routes 598 and 599 eventually gets split into several routes.  Percentage wise, passengers mostly get off at the shopping centres and go no further, there are very few who make through journeys on the GCL, and only the diehard and those wanting to just simply make a day of exploring the network who travel the entire route (598, 599).  In other words, you are showing that you do not have an understanding of public transport planning and operations, and are not considering these factors into your argument.

[#Metro]

Possibly, but I think many of Brisbane's routes are more based on historical (tram?) routes rather than optimised engineering models.
475, 476, 375, 379, 199 are through routes.

Canberra buses actually run on this 'through route' principle. Their 300 series of buses all begin in different suburbs, and then run a common route through the CBD, and then fan out into the suburbs once again. It's called the Intertown.

[STB]

I have heard a rumour that either route 375 or 379 will eventually be split into two different routes.

[stephenk]

In Brisbane a good example would be to link the 333 and 111 bus routes.

The 333 is unreliable enough already. Making it run further will only make things worse. Poor suggestion.

[somebody]

In Brisbane a good example would be to link the 333 and 111 bus routes.

The 333 is unreliable enough already. Making it run further will only make things worse. Poor suggestion.

I tend to agree.  Also I think the 111 is more often a bendy bus than the 333, so either you would need more bendy buses, or more frequency.

But there are some routes where I do think he has a point.  The 390 runs to Mitchelton every 15 mins in the weekday off peak, but the 396/397/398 start from Mitchelton at significantly lower frequency.  By combining these runs with the 390 run in a co-ordinated manner you could save a connection.

Also, several 5xx routes start from Garden City, with first stop 8 mile plains.  These could be combined with the 111 in theory.  Of course, there are several problems with doing so: Not the least of these is the different operators, but also the bendy bus problem would apply.

[Andrew]

There are two ways main ways to approach this issue:
1. Join routes together and/or have a common corridor like in Canberra

2. Run frequent services that provide easy connection with feeder services like in Perth with Bus/Rail

It would be nice to have cross town services.  The problem is, as has been stated, that the more distance travelled, the more potential for delays. 

A good example of this would be a comparison between the 196/197 (Fairfield Gardens - Merthyr) 47mins and the 150 (City - Browns Plains) 50mins.  They are both given similar travelling times from end to end, however the 150 covers more than twice the distance for the same amount of time.  This means the 150 can be impacted more by delays than the 196/197.
Brisbane used to have many cross town services that were old tram routes:
Toombul-Salisbury/Acacia Ridge/Algester
Ascot - Balmoral
Chermside - City - Enoggera
The common reason why these routes have been separated is because of reduced reliability.  It meant that a 3 car pile up at Albion on Sandgate  Road could cause a bus to Algester to be late.  Sydney trains have been trying to solve the same problem with their clearways program.  I think there needs to be more emphasis on train/bus connetions than bus/bus connections. The Logan area would be a perfect candidate for bus/rail. I think having so many rockets to/from the logan area is overkill and inefficient. I believe that people are willing to change if both services are frequent and reliable and that more focus needs to be put on this. Perth has implemented this model quite sucessfully on the Currumbine & Mandurah Lines.

[Jon Bryant]

The key is these trunk routes need to be on their own dedicate lane/busway to ensure reliability.  Putting buses in with general traffic on the major roads/routes is an insult to all those trying to the right thing. It basically says that those who drive their own car, take up 40 times the road spaces and produce far greater CO2/km have more rights than those on the bus.

My real question is this.

Currently PT usage is around 15%-18% but needs to be at 40%-50% (with active transport 20%-25%) for SEQ to be sustainable.  The key question is can a ramped up bus network ever move this many people?   If we want to move massive numbers of people around our city then buses (even in their own dedicated lane/busway) are unlikely to move such numbers without their own congestion/bottleneck problems.

[#Metro]

 

[#Metro]

A good example of this would be a comparison between the 196/197 (Fairfield Gardens - Merthyr) 47mins and the 150 (City - Browns Plains) 50mins.  They are both given similar travelling times from end to end, however the 150 covers more than twice the distance for the same amount of time.  This means the 150 can be impacted more by delays than the 196/197.
Brisbane used to have many cross town services that were old tram routes:

Right of way is key I think. Frequency is also important.

For a passenger who misses a 150, it is not such a big deal as there is probably another one or a similar route a few minutes away.
For a passenger who misses 196/197 (why are there two routes?), it is more of a deal because you have to wait half an hour.

Currently PT usage is around 15%-18% but needs to be at 40%-50% (with active transport 20%-25%) for SEQ to be sustainable.  The key question is can a ramped up bus network ever move this many people?   If we want to move massive numbers of people around our city then buses (even in their own dedicated lane/busway) are unlikely to move such numbers without their own congestion/bottleneck problems.

Feeder buses and aircraft-style bus control. See Bogota example where they move more passengers per hour/line than the London Metro.

How to get more people onto PT? Make some gimmick with those petrol discounts that come with your shop a docket! Turn one in and get 8c/km wiped off your monthly ticket or something like that :-). It works for cars...