Eastern Busway

[dwb]

I think overall you're perspective is too tightly focussed on radial peak hour customers, just like Translink and BCC! A good network needs to accomodate other people's trips and definitely needs to service customers other than just peak hour radial ones!

Ooh, that's an insult.  Peak hour is the biggest opportunity for public transport, outside of events, and it is falling short in BrisVegas.

Maybe a little rub, but then I really do agree with Bulimba when they say:

I think what the transport figures are indicating is that commuters travelling to the City in peak, generally, have access to workable public transport.  But it seems most other travel is done by car.  In order to try and get more of those people to use public transport, a good "network", cross town and interchange system is needed (which is legible) as you cannot have a one seat journey to cater for those disparate journeys.

[somebody]

I think the 590 should be extended to Toombul and the 599/598 service in this section withdrawn.
Savings from the removal of 599/598 should be placed back into the 590

I agree with the extension to Toombul, which would allow connections from the northern train lines as well.

I disagree with removing 598/599 though, that is one major detour between Cannon Hill and Toombul and 590 provides no connection to the Cleveland line.  As previously discussed, that is a useful connection from the bayside to Carindale (although I suspect not widely used).

I always assumed this would connect to the Cleveland line at Murrarie.  It seems that I've been disappointed here.

I'm in two minds about the Toombul extension.  Once you extend to Toombul, then why not Chermside, then PCH, then Everton Park, then Brookside, then Toowong!

[#Metro]

I always assumed this would connect to the Cleveland line at Murrarie.  It seems that I've been disappointed here.

I'm in two minds about the Toombul extension.  Once you extend to Toombul, then why not Chermside, then PCH, then Everton Park, then Brookside, then Toowong!

Simon, I think that's running away with oneself. By that argument why not shut down the entire bus network lest, shock horror, some hideous bus routing be thrust upon the network!
Some perspective and sense of proportion- Toombul has connection to the Northern train lines and bus network from there. You would not go further than that because other routes could handle that, and the route would get too long.

Seems a bit odd to terminate the bus at DFO Airport.

[somebody]

Maybe a little rub, but then I really do agree with Bulimba when they say:

I think what the transport figures are indicating is that commuters travelling to the City in peak, generally, have access to workable public transport.  But it seems most other travel is done by car.  In order to try and get more of those people to use public transport, a good "network", cross town and interchange system is needed (which is legible) as you cannot have a one seat journey to cater for those disparate journeys.

In many cases they do.  But I think the peak PT mode share and traffic congestion shows that PT is falling short of the mark in peak hour.

[somebody]

Why is the 200 having a stop added on Deshon St now?  Surely not to entrench the current via Woolloongabba route?

[O_128]

Why is the 200 having a stop added on Deshon St now?  Surely not to entrench the current via Woolloongabba route?

Stupid stupid stupid, most people will move to the 222 anyway

[somebody]

Why is the 200 having a stop added on Deshon St now?  Surely not to entrench the current via Woolloongabba route?

Stupid stupid stupid, most people will move to the 222 anyway

You reckon?  Won't they keep doing what they have always done?

[Bulimba30A]

When you think about it there will be so many options during peak down Old Cleveland Rd... 200, 206, 207, 222 which are all pretty frequent. I for one would avoid 200 just to avoid the entry into the busway at Woolloongabba. 

It also really highlights how ridiculous it is to have BOTH 200 and 222, particularly if 222 ends at Carindale rather than Chandler/Capalaba.  Meanwhile most other areas in the east have to put up with half hourly, hourly or worse (thinking 230 and 235) on weekends.

[BrizCommuter]

The stopping on the 196 really annoys me sometimes.. don't get me started. A trip can get delayed by 10mins+ purely because of 1 person getting off every 100m (literally) causing extra time in slowing down, opening doors, closing doors, pulling out into traffic etc. Would save Translink time in stop maintenance if some were removed!  Though if no one is getting off (much), you get places quicker than a car could. But it's an inner city route, it can't exactly "express" to anywhere like the 130/140/150 can along the busway.

It's called public transport for a reason. If you want an express ride from work to home, get a car.

[O_128]

Why is the 200 having a stop added on Deshon St now?  Surely not to entrench the current via Woolloongabba route?

Stupid stupid stupid, most people will move to the 222 anyway

You reckon?  Won't they keep doing what they have always done?

Woolongabba is congested in peak and inbound is a pain in the neck, Ive waited 10 minutes on the bus in traffic to get onto the busway, 222 will be much faster. And in reply to brizcommuter its not about a an express ride its the fact that the stops are way to close together and people get off at each one and it slows down the bus to much often adding 5+ minutes to a trip. Stops should be about 400m apart and 800m for a BUZ

[somebody]

I for one would avoid 200 just to avoid the entry into the busway at Woolloongabba. 

I/B I expect the 222 to be reasonably well patronised.  In peak you'd probably avoid the 200 I/B to get the 201/207 on the busway and via the Captain Cook Bridge.  Or at least I think I would.

O/B is where the 200 IMO will struggle because everyone will continue to go to QSBS as they have always done.

[AnonymouslyBad]

Why is the 200 having a stop added on Deshon St now?  Surely not to entrench the current via Woolloongabba route?

Stupid stupid stupid, most people will move to the 222 anyway

I think the retaining of the 200 as is comes back to the mentality that seems to be the gospel of TL (and BT especially): you never, ever make any change that could be perceived as cutting back on an existing service - regardless of whether it's justified or not. It's annoying, because those air parcel buses could be better used somewhere else, but that seems to be how things go here.

The fact that Woolloongabba will be even more isolated now doesn't help. Why the Eastern Busway didn't connect back to Woolloongabba rather than Buranda is beyond me, because it was outrageously expensive to construct as is, it surely couldn't have been worse!

The fact that the 200 has stayed as the 200, when tradition calls for the "key route" to be the 222, suggests this probably was the intention all along.

I suspect most people will just catch whichever service comes first (on the inbound anyway).

[somebody]

I suspect most people will just catch whichever service comes first (on the inbound anyway).

I agree in the off peak, however peak hour could be different.  I think the 207 will be significantly better than the 200, with the 222 somewhere in between.  Experience will eventually teach them to let the 200 go by. Perhaps not though - what do they do with the 204?

[Mr X]

It's called public transport for a reason. If you want an express ride from work to home, get a car.

Yet people (i.e you)  support a FAST frequent core network. Strange.

Core routes shouldnt have a stop every 100m.

edited to fix the posting error

[somebody]

The stopping on the 196 really annoys me sometimes.. don't get me started. A trip can get delayed by 10mins+ purely because of 1 person getting off every 100m (literally) causing extra time in slowing down, opening doors, closing doors, pulling out into traffic etc. Would save Translink time in stop maintenance if some were removed!  Though if no one is getting off (much), you get places quicker than a car could. But it's an inner city route, it can't exactly "express" to anywhere like the 130/140/150 can along the busway.

It's called public transport for a reason. If you want an express ride from work to home, get a car.

I have to ask if you believe public transport should be "rapid transit"?

[Mr X]

Exactly. 196 is a BUZ, it shouldn't be spending most of it's time stopped, which it does.

According to BC's logic, we should have every bus route go through past everyone's front door!

tality that seems to be the gospel of TL (and BT especially): you never, ever make any change that could be perceived as cutting back on an existing service - regardless of whether it's justified or not. It's annoying, because those air parcel buses could be better used somewhere else, but that seems to be how things go here.

Which I guess is fair enough to a degree BUT in this case adding another BUZ just to avoid moving the 200 out of Woolloongabba is pretty silly. I'd have thought some 200 services would be changed to 222 and the 200 de-BUZ'd.

[O_128]

Exactly. 196 is a BUZ, it shouldn't be spending most of it's time stopped, which it does.

According to BC's logic, we should have every bus route go through past everyone's front door!

tality that seems to be the gospel of TL (and BT especially): you never, ever make any change that could be perceived as cutting back on an existing service - regardless of whether it's justified or not. It's annoying, because those air parcel buses could be better used somewhere else, but that seems to be how things go here.

Which I guess is fair enough to a degree BUT in this case adding another BUZ just to avoid moving the 200 out of Woolloongabba is pretty silly. I'd have thought some 200 services would be changed to 222 and the 200 de-BUZ'd.

The issue is that the 200 should have just been moved, it doesn't even stop between woolongabba and langlands park anyway, the issue is people to lazy to get off there fat assess and change to a 66 at mater hill

[WTN]

tality that seems to be the gospel of TL (and BT especially): you never, ever make any change that could be perceived as cutting back on an existing service - regardless of whether it's justified or not. It's annoying, because those air parcel buses could be better used somewhere else, but that seems to be how things go here.

Which I guess is fair enough to a degree BUT in this case adding another BUZ just to avoid moving the 200 out of Woolloongabba is pretty silly. I'd have thought some 200 services would be changed to 222 and the 200 de-BUZ'd.

It would be more sensible to cut back the 200 to Coorparoo or Carina and allow passengers to transfer. But the backlash of transferring would be too great. Or you'd have to run the 66 7 days a week, which it doesn't do currently.

The 204 is getting a frequency upgrade on Sundays from hourly to half hourly. It does however, share a large section on Old Cleveland Rd with the 200 and 222, only difference is the 204 observes all stops. Any more frequency increases and it looks like overserviced. The 204 will stay on Old Cleveland Rd so it can continue along Logan Rd.

While the P205 is great that it covers new areas, I'm a bit concerned about a few silly inconsistencies with P205. It's nearly the same as P201, except for the Carindale end, a few stops between Buranda and Carindale, and worst of all, it stops OUTSIDE Carindale interchange. Why can't the P201 and P205 have the same stopping pattern up until the interchange and service it?

P206 and P207 don't look like they will service Buranda (another caveat). I would even say these routes should be consolidated as one of them is almost a short run of the other.

[somebody]

Re: P205, I wonder about the merit of serving an interchange at a shopping centre for a rocket O/B P331 & P341 don't do it.

P206 & P207 make sense in the AM as one is a "City Precincts" service and the other is a normal rocket, but make little sense in the PM due to a quite bizarre route of the 207.

[Bulimba30A]

The more I think about this, the more I see wasted opportunities.

Re the decision about 200/222 and the Gabba - I agree with the suspicion that its because they don't want to move the 200 from the Gabba.  I really would like to see the patronage figues for 200 and the Gabba which justify that decision.  Besides, you don't need the 66 for that, there are still many routes which travel from Mater to the Gabba.  The problem is that the system is so confusing that there is no easy way of knowing which go via the Gabba and which go via Buranda.  An easy solution is to have TV screen similar to those in the Sydney city circle rail stations which show next train to Central.  Have one that lists next bus to Gabba and one that lists next bus to Buranda (which could also be replicated for South Bank and Cultural Centre).

Re 206/207 - I think the 207 was put in place to reduce overcrowding on 206.  There were many AM services which were full by Coorparoo West which was allievated for the AM peak.  Again, why they didn't just start some 206's from Carina in the morning? 

In the AM, it also provides a rocket service over Captain Cook Bridge for the George St end of town, which a lot of people use from experience.  The other anomoloy is that 206 services all stops between Camp Hill and Carina where 207 runs express.  Why?

I am strongly of the view that both 206 and 207 should use Buranda, particularly for the PM peak.  While there is no busway City Precincts service, I think they would provide a really useful link to busway services for Eagle St and Parliament in particular (and a faster route out of town than Adelaide St). 

My solution for 207 (if it is to remain) is to start at Meadowlands Rd or Fursden Rd, down Adelaide St to Old Cleveland Rd... but I'll wait to see what the precise route of 217 is before making a call on that.

Re 205 not using the interchange - Now that the 213 timetable is out, it is clear that it is only designed to go TO Carindale in AM peak and FROM Carindale in the PM.  I am at a loss as to the numbers of people between Cannon Hill and Tingalpa which would need such a frequent service for that limited time?  Surely its not to connect to City bound services as the 216, 221 and 227 are already there.  Again, this is done while leaving areas which have next to no public transport in the dark. The other thing is that if Belmont Rd users actually use the services for connections at Carindale (which I presume is the point), I think 205 will need to stop at the interchange to alleviate the 201.  On the occasions where I have used the school terms only 204 to connect to the 201, the queue at Carindale means that you generally have to miss one bus before you can get on one.  I'm not sure whether that queue has died down any in the last little while but will report back at the end of August.

Re 205 serving new areas - Am I the only one who finds it a bit sad that the new services are lauded as providing public transport to people for the first time, but it is ONLY a peak service?  I had a look at the combined 202, 205 timetable and the last service to leave the City is 7:10pm (which is a 202) That means despite the introduction of 205, there are still the same ordinary services down Samuel/Winstanley St and no services to the end of Scrub Rd for the most part.  For the 205 to be truly effective it needs to be an all day Cityxpress services with 30 min frequency minimum.

The one thing the 205 does do (which I think is needed) is providing a service doiwn Winstanley St at the Scrub Rd end.

[Bulimba30A]

Oh and another thing with 213, it skips the Annette St/Thurston St loop.  Why?

It is supposed to feed people into Carindale, why is it the only service to skip that section?  As much as it is a personal benefit to me, I really don't understand what 213 is trying to achieve and how the proposed route is intended to do it.  I'm all for skipping detours and being more direct, but if it starts at Cannon Hill which I don't think will be well patronised (rather than, say, Bognor St Tingalpa or Hargraves Rd, Manly West), why is it skipping the loop?

[BrizCommuter]

It's called public transport for a reason. If you want an express ride from work to home, get a car.

Yet people (i.e you)  support a FAST frequent core network. Strange.

Core routes shouldnt have a stop every 100m.

edited to fix the posting error

Does BrizCommuter support a FAST frequent core network? Frequent, yes. "Fast" has to be balanced between attractiveness of the shorter journey time (e.g express services), and providing a convenient service to as many people as possible along a route (e.g all stops). Having used the 196, it effectively serves a large area of Merthyr, and really isn't that slow (certainly not when BrizCommuter has used it anyway).
If the 196 had less stops, where is the frequent all stops alternative for the less able in Merthyr? It doesn't exist!

BrizCommuter regularly uses the all stops 390 and express 345. Between Normanby and Alderley, there is in reality about 2 minutes difference in journey time between both of these services.

[dwb]

It's called public transport for a reason. If you want an express ride from work to home, get a car.

Yet people (i.e you)  support a FAST frequent core network. Strange.

Core routes shouldnt have a stop every 100m.

edited to fix the posting error

Does BrizCommuter support a FAST frequent core network? Frequent, yes. "Fast" has to be balanced between attractiveness of the shorter journey time (e.g express services), and providing a convenient service to as many people as possible along a route (e.g all stops). Having used the 196, it effectively serves a large area of Merthyr, and really isn't that slow (certainly not when BrizCommuter has used it anyway).
If the 196 had less stops, where is the frequent all stops alternative for the less able in Merthyr? It doesn't exist!

BrizCommuter regularly uses the all stops 390 and express 345. Between Normanby and Alderley, there is in reality about 2 minutes difference in journey time between both of these services.

I think the time difference between all stops and limited stops can vary by route and road, however often the perceived difference in time is much larger than the actual difference in time. Perceptions are important though, therefore so are limited stops services.

[somebody]

Does BrizCommuter support a FAST frequent core network? Frequent, yes. "Fast" has to be balanced between attractiveness of the shorter journey time (e.g express services), and providing a convenient service to as many people as possible along a route (e.g all stops). Having used the 196, it effectively serves a large area of Merthyr, and really isn't that slow (certainly not when BrizCommuter has used it anyway).
If the 196 had less stops, where is the frequent all stops alternative for the less able in Merthyr? It doesn't exist!

BrizCommuter regularly uses the all stops 390 and express 345. Between Normanby and Alderley, there is in reality about 2 minutes difference in journey time between both of these services.

For the record, in the case of the 196 I would probably agree.  196 and/or CityGlider need to serve all stops between the Cultural Centre and near Boundary St with the 199 running non stop in that zone.  That would be an integrated solution, providing faster trips to the majority of users while still catering to the infirm.  But such things are anathema here.

The more I think about this, the more I see wasted opportunities.

Re the decision about 200/222 and the Gabba - I agree with the suspicion that its because they don't want to move the 200 from the Gabba.  I really would like to see the patronage figues for 200 and the Gabba which justify that decision.  Besides, you don't need the 66 for that, there are still many routes which travel from Mater to the Gabba.  The problem is that the system is so confusing that there is no easy way of knowing which go via the Gabba and which go via Buranda.  An easy solution is to have TV screen similar to those in the Sydney city circle rail stations which show next train to Central.  Have one that lists next bus to Gabba and one that lists next bus to Buranda (which could also be replicated for South Bank and Cultural Centre).

I don't think anyone would care about the patronage at the gabba.

Re 206/207 - I think the 207 was put in place to reduce overcrowding on 206.  There were many AM services which were full by Coorparoo West which was allievated for the AM peak.  Again, why they didn't just start some 206's from Carina in the morning?  

In the AM, it also provides a rocket service over Captain Cook Bridge for the George St end of town, which a lot of people use from experience.  The other anomoloy is that 206 services all stops between Camp Hill and Carina where 207 runs express.  Why?

I think the all stops would be a historical anomaly.  206 runs all stops to Carina as that's what the 202 & 204 whose customers it is providing a rocket service had.  Then later the 207 came along.  It would have made sense for the express leg of the 206 to be migrated with the 207 covering that part of the all stops, but there you have it.

I am strongly of the view that both 206 and 207 should use Buranda, particularly for the PM peak.  While there is no busway City Precincts service, I think they would provide a really useful link to busway services for Eagle St and Parliament in particular (and a faster route out of town than Adelaide St).  

That is in the plan.  Refer to page 4 or the TL website.

My solution for 207 (if it is to remain) is to start at Meadowlands Rd or Fursden Rd, down Adelaide St to Old Cleveland Rd... but I'll wait to see what the precise route of 217 is before making a call on that.

Hard to say whether the 217 will use Elizabeth St or Margaret St, but either way we don't need it.  It does add a stop at Carindale and Benetts Rd, but you could do that to the 206 and/or 207.

Re 205 not using the interchange - Now that the 213 timetable is out, it is clear that it is only designed to go TO Carindale in AM peak and FROM Carindale in the PM.  I am at a loss as to the numbers of people between Cannon Hill and Tingalpa which would need such a frequent service for that limited time?  Surely its not to connect to City bound services as the 216, 221 and 227 are already there.  Again, this is done while leaving areas which have next to no public transport in the dark. The other thing is that if Belmont Rd users actually use the services for connections at Carindale (which I presume is the point), I think 205 will need to stop at the interchange to alleviate the 201.  On the occasions where I have used the school terms only 204 to connect to the 201, the queue at Carindale means that you generally have to miss one bus before you can get on one.  I'm not sure whether that queue has died down any in the last little while but will report back at the end of August.

Add frequencies to the 201.

Re 205 serving new areas - Am I the only one who finds it a bit sad that the new services are lauded as providing public transport to people for the first time, but it is ONLY a peak service?  I had a look at the combined 202, 205 timetable and the last service to leave the City is 7:10pm (which is a 202) That means despite the introduction of 205, there are still the same ordinary services down Samuel/Winstanley St and no services to the end of Scrub Rd for the most part.  For the 205 to be truly effective it needs to be an all day Cityxpress services with 30 min frequency minimum.

The one thing the 205 does do (which I think is needed) is providing a service doiwn Winstanley St at the Scrub Rd end.

Majority of the 205 route is already pretended to be served by the 202 though.

Oh and another thing with 213, it skips the Annette St/Thurston St loop.  Why?

It is supposed to feed people into Carindale, why is it the only service to skip that section?  As much as it is a personal benefit to me, I really don't understand what 213 is trying to achieve and how the proposed route is intended to do it.  I'm all for skipping detours and being more direct, but if it starts at Cannon Hill which I don't think will be well patronised (rather than, say, Bognor St Tingalpa or Hargraves Rd, Manly West), why is it skipping the loop?

I don't see why not convert the 214 workings into 215s if the 216 is underperforming.  Then you wouldn't need this useless 213 route which requires you to backtrack to Carindale to reach the city.

[somebody]

I think overall your perspective is too tightly focussed on radial peak hour customers, just like Translink and BCC! A good network needs to accomodate other people's trips and definitely needs to service customers other than just peak hour radial ones!

For the record, I reject this completely. I was going to add supporting arguments to that, but I see no point.

[dwb]

I think overall your perspective is too tightly focussed on radial peak hour customers, just like Translink and BCC! A good network needs to accomodate other people's trips and definitely needs to service customers other than just peak hour radial ones!

For the record, I reject this completely. I was going to add supporting arguments to that, but I see no point.

Peak hour is the biggest opportunity for public transport, outside of events, and it is falling short in BrisVegas.

Let's put it this way, I think offpeak travel is the network's biggest opportunity now.

[somebody]

Let's put it this way, I think offpeak travel is the network's biggest opportunity now.

I can only see your point of view if you are thinking of rail services.

[dwb]

Let's put it this way, I think offpeak travel is the network's biggest opportunity now.

I can only see your point of view if you are thinking of rail services.

I'm talking about enabling people to live relying on transit, whether that be bus, ferry, tram, train or otherwise, but yes, offpeak rail services frequency is a glaringly obvious pain in the a@#.

[O_128]

Why was there no consolation?

[somebody]

I was going to say that there was no consultation because of the ridiculous things which would be said.  But then, how could the result have been worse?

[AnonymouslyBad]

I was going to say that there was no consultation because of the ridiculous things which would be said.  But then, how could the result have been worse?

You have a point though - I think a public consultation probably would've yielded the same result.
That's not to say there shouldn't have been one, but the general public are not transport planners.
If they were, we'd have single seat trips to everywhere. And absolutely no change to an existing service no matter what.

Oh wait

I suspect most of the missed opportunities in the Eastern Busway services are to appease said general public.

[Mr X]

For the record, in the case of the 196 I would probably agree.  196 and/or CityGlider need to serve all stops between the Cultural Centre and near Boundary St with the 199 running non stop in that zone.  That would be an integrated solution, providing faster trips to the majority of users while still catering to the infirm.  But such things are anathema here.

Hmm good point, though shouldn't CityGlider run express as it was created as an express route through West End?

A possible idea for the 192/196/199/cityglider through Melbourne St is a busway down to the Boundary St/Browning St junction, though a better alternative would probably be a full blown metro.
As for the 196- it just needs certain bus stops removed on the FAIRFIELD end (I can't speak much for the New Farm end, I rarely take it to NF) which is the part I normally use. Some of the stops are a 1-2min walk apart, and in peak hour this DOES slow down the journey and it's pretty noticable. You end up with a leap frogging event as one bus is so late that the one after it overtakes and then they overtake each other for the end of the journey.
This decreases people's willingness to use the service even if it's not to the city (i.e. use it to go to the shops at FFG), you'd be quicker to drive if the bus has to keep on stopping!

I must admit, it has improved a lot since I first started using the bus in 2005, with both it and the 199 being BUZ'd and stop location changes in the CBD, as well as new go cards, reduce a lot of the delay and overcrowding.

I was going to say that there was no consultation because of the ridiculous things which would be said.  But then, how could the result have been worse?

You have a point though - I think a public consultation probably would've yielded the same result.
That's not to say there shouldn't have been one, but the general public are not transport planners.
If they were, we'd have single seat trips to everywhere. And absolutely no change to an existing service no matter what.

Oh wait

I suspect most of the missed opportunities in the Eastern Busway services are to appease said general public.

Just a quickie.. what do you guys actually think they should have done?
I imagine the 200 should have been renamed as 222 and sent via Stones Corner. Would another BUZ be sent through Woolloongabba in it's place (245?). Is the demand for access to Woolloongabba from Old Cleveland Rd really great enough to justify keeping a BUZ to keep the connection?

[Otto]

The 200 does get a lot of Gabba pax ( to and from ) on Sunday nights ! ( due to a lack of other services ).. 

[dwb]

You have a point though - I think a public consultation probably would've yielded the same result.
That's not to say there shouldn't have been one, but the general public are not transport planners.
If they were, we'd have single seat trips to everywhere. And absolutely no change to an existing service no matter what.

Oh wait

I suspect most of the missed opportunities in the Eastern Busway services are to appease said general public.

Good consultation is about informing the public of limitations and opportunities as much as anything. It is certainly NOT about trying to get the public to be transport planners. I could go on longer, but I won't. I'll just say if we'd had consultation about go card implementation, a lot of grief could have been avoided. I'm not saying the issues weren't forseen by the planners, but sometimes consultation can give planners ammunition to better inform the elected reps to make better decisions!

[dwb]

You have a point though - I think a public consultation probably would've yielded the same result.
That's not to say there shouldn't have been one, but the general public are not transport planners.
If they were, we'd have single seat trips to everywhere. And absolutely no change to an existing service no matter what.

Oh wait

I suspect most of the missed opportunities in the Eastern Busway services are to appease said general public.

Good consultation is about informing the public of limitations and opportunities as much as anything. It is certainly NOT about trying to get the public to be transport planners. I could go on longer, but I won't. I'll just say if we'd had consultation about go card implementation, a lot of grief could have been avoided. I'm not saying the issues weren't forseen by the planners, but sometimes consultation can give planners ammunition to better inform the elected reps to make better decisions!

Or as a better man than me said:

But the hardest and most important question is "What is the public being asked?"

I think it's very common to ask the public very general "what do you think?" questions, on the assumption that this lets everyone express their view.  It does that, but the answers to such vague questions are almost impossible to use inside the study, and a good part of the public will sense that.

That's why I try to use questions that ask the public to consider the real choices facing the city or transit system.  That requires a process that listens and educates at the same time, and in which project planners give the public information and a framing of the problem.  This post, despite a dead link, is a pretty good overview of that mode of thought.  My network design course is also based on "planning games" that allow stakeholders to experience the tradeoffs themselves.  It's the same idea.

From http://www.humantransit.org/public-outreach-and-consultation/

[somebody]

Hmm good point, though shouldn't CityGlider run express as it was created as an express route through West End?

I don't think so.  Of the 196, 199 & CityGlider, I am sure the CityGlider is the lowest patronised service.  Why should the least number of people get the benefit of the express run?

You're thinking about the marketing of the CityGlider, rather than the system as a whole.

EDIT: Oh, pre BUZIfication 196 pax was 1 mil, in 2009 when the 199 was 3.4 mil.  CityGlider did carry 1.5 mil in its first year, but I expect the 196 has doubled.  I'm open to updated figures though.

I have the same problem with CityGlider versus 300.

[Mr X]

I just thought being an express route it would be CityGlider, one main issue I'd see with the 199 running express is that you'd be "removing" a service from the public (the "what if I was to go to x" syndrome) and the NIMBYs would complain  plus it would make the system confusing, people associate the 199 with West End and by having irregular stopping patterns down Melbourne St this complicates the system.

I imagine that 196 number from 2009 was inaccurate as it didn't use the 197 figures (which would largely be the same crowd of people).

[somebody]

Good point about the 197!

I don't think you should think about how to placate those NIMBYs.

[somebody]

204 timetable is up.

What's clockface?

[Mr X]

196/199 timetable has changed.. anyone know what is different?