UQ Lakes bursting at the seams

[#Metro]

Suggestions:
1. No more bus layovers/terminating services/breaks there. Services should drop pax, empty and pick up the next lot and go. Layovers could be done on vacant parking land between PA Hospital Busway and the Cleveland Rail line or at the other terminus (Carindale, Garden City, CBD).

2. The other side of the turnaround should get 3 bus bays and a shelter built in to it. This will allow 192, 139 and 169 to get their own stops and prevent congestion. The bus bays may need to be re-assigned.

3. Bendy buses during morning and afternoon peak for 109

4. Consider northside/Valley service similar to 77 via clem 7 tunnel

5. Rocket services to Sunnybank, to the CBD and to Garden City from UQ Lakes. This can start off as a trial of 2 or 4 buses per hour during peak hour.

6. 66+109 merge, route 104 to be extended to UQ Lakes & PA Hospital Busway and frequency upped.

[O_128]

Was actually going to make my own thread this aswell. The major issue is the drivers having breaks and clogging up the whole area.

[stephenk]

Sorry, but is there actually any issue at UQ Lakes? Whilst I only occasionally use it when I'm lecturing there, I've never seen any vehicular congestion or lack of space for layovers. Taking layovers at other locations could complicate operations, decrease reliability, and waste time and fuel.

[david]

They really should've designed it so that the current bus bays are drop-off/layover bays and then the current layover area becomes the new bus stops. That way, the bus enters UQ Lakes, drops off passengers, driver gets a rest without moving anywhere and then the bus moves over to the pick-up zone.

By the way, I have heard that a redesign of UQ Lakes is on the cards...

[#Metro]

I have heard the same thing too. There are serious and long standing issues with congestion and full buses there.

[O_128]

Sorry, but is there actually any issue at UQ Lakes? Whilst I only occasionally use it when I'm lecturing there, I've never seen any vehicular congestion or lack of space for layovers. Taking layovers at other locations could complicate operations, decrease reliability, and waste time and fuel.

Currently (i.e. today) Arrived at the lakes at about 1:10 109 was in first stop 209 second and 192 third, 169 was waiting in line as the other side was filled with drivers taking a break

[Jon Bryant]

There was talk originally of the bus routes continuing through the Uni and onto I foroopily or Towong.  The Uni in all it wisdom did not want buses running through the grounds.  Lots of cars were ok but not buses.  Time to revist this bad decision.

[somebody]

There was talk originally of the bus routes continuing through the Uni and onto I foroopily or Towong.  The Uni in all it wisdom did not want buses running through the grounds.  Lots of cars were ok but not buses.  Time to revist this bad decision.

I'm comfortable with leaving the decision alone.  It wouldn't be any faster to get to Indooroopilly via UQ Lakes than at present, and once you allow buses to do it people will want cars to be able to do it.

Suggestions:
1. No more bus layovers/terminating services/breaks there. Services should drop pax, empty and pick up the next lot and go. Layovers could be done on vacant parking land between PA Hospital Busway and the Cleveland Rail line or at the other terminus (Carindale, Garden City, CBD).

4. Consider northside/Valley service similar to 77 via clem 7 tunnel

5. Rocket services to Sunnybank, to the CBD and to Garden City from UQ Lakes. This can start off as a trial of 2 or 4 buses per hour during peak hour.

These points I don't really agree with.  Expansion is happenning soon, the layover area will be in the centre then.

No issue with using the 77 and changing at Buranda.

Why rocket services?  an extension of the 139 would be better.

[Jon Bryant]

I was thinking the benefits were more the other direction from Indo to UQ and beyond.

[#Metro]

Why rocket services?  an extension of the 139 would be better.

Firstly:
1. The bus can't fit everyone
2. Rockets would work because there is high demand for CBD, Sunnybank and Garden City- enough to fill a few non-stop buses. They did it with 407 Rocket until that was abolished.

[Golliwog]

Has anyone heard anything new about the upgrade of the UQ Lakes stop?

I don't see the problem with allowing buses to continue through the uni to Indro. I thought the whole point of the Eleanor Schonell Bridge was to allow buses to do things cars can't. It would encourage PT. But I think increasing the frequency of the current buses from indro that go to the Chancellors place bus stop would be sufficient. Walking around campus isn't hard.

I also disagree with the introduction of express services, at least until there are more bus bays available. As was pointed out earlier, there are currently already more bus routes than bays and so in peak when all the services are trying to load buses to capacity, having an increased number of different routes trying to do this would just exaccerbate this problem. I think keeping the bus layover at UQ is fine, almost all of the buses using it turn into uni buses anyway.

[Jon Bryant]

The only reason the bus ay stops at UQ Lakes is that the former Chancellor would not allow it.  It is time to insist the busway extends to Indoro.

[Golliwog]

Perhaps to reduce the impacts of removing the Chancellors place bus stop, as part of the busway to Indro, they could include a stop in a tunnel underneath the current stop? Although I am aware the all the ground underthe current Great Court etc is solid rock and this would be hard to tunnel through but it could be done.

[somebody]

The only reason the bus ay stops at UQ Lakes is that the former Chancellor would not allow it.  It is time to insist the busway extends to Indoro.

But that would be slower than the current route!

[Golliwog]

The only reason the bus ay stops at UQ Lakes is that the former Chancellor would not allow it.  It is time to insist the busway extends to Indoro.

But that would be slower than the current route!

How do you figure?

[somebody]

It would be slower Indooroopilly-City than the current route.  Really, if the speed of the route was the main issue for UQ pax there would be more runs via Lambert Rd.  Perhaps there should be.  I assume that the 428 uses its current route to pick up pax through Taringa.  I must admit some confusion about the 427 though.

In fact, an even quicker westbound route would be to run along Swann Rd over the railway and turn left onto Moggill Rd, which seems to make sense for the 427 and 432, unless you think that the 432 follows the route that it does to serve Lambert Rd & Indooroopilly Rd.

[Jon Bryant]

The only reason the bus ay stops at UQ Lakes is that the former Chancellor would not allow it.  It is time to insist the busway extends to Indoro.

But that would be slower than the current route!

I was thinking more about makng cross city connections that bypass the CBD than another route to the City.

[Golliwog]

I agree that running buses from Indro via UQ to the city would definatly be slower. But I think providing another route that 1 goes to UQ and 2 uses the Clem 7 to cross the city is a good idea. Hey, its not like the cars are using that tunnel or anything.

[somebody]

I was thinking more about makng cross city connections that bypass the CBD than another route to the City.

Well Great Circle and the 105 fill that role to some degree at least.

[Jon Bryant]

2 routes a connected city does not make I am sorry

[Golliwog]

What about a connection Indro - UQ - Clem 7 - Chermside - Aspley? Not neccessarily an express, but thats tha basic gist of the route. Or would be if buses could get form the UQ Lakes stop onto the local road network.

[#Metro]

105 fill that role to some degree at least.

That bus is needs its loops cut off the loops and the route re-organized.
Something needs to be done about 104, 108 and 107 as well.

From Vuchic (2005) "Urban Transit- Operations, Planning and Economics" (Basically the International Public Transport Bible), page 195 and 196:

Street transit often follows circuitous routing for collection/distribution in low-density suburban residential areas.
Such routing is, however acceptable only on the end sections of lines, where there are no through passengers.
It should not be used mid-route, since such alignment creates delays that are often unacceptable for passengers from outer areas.

[ButFli]

What about a connection Indro - UQ - Clem 7 - Chermside - Aspley? Not neccessarily an express, but thats tha basic gist of the route. Or would be if buses could get form the UQ Lakes stop onto the local road network.

Why would anyone want to travel to from Indooro to Chermside or Aspley via UQ and the Clem 7 tunnel? We've already established that Indooro to the City via UQ would be slower than the current route. That leaves passengers from UQ wanting to go to Chermside and Aspley. If there really areenough of these passengers to justify a new route, why does it need to start at Indooro? It could serve these passengers by starting at UQ Lakes.

There is no reason to turn UQ into a bus thoroughfare.

[Golliwog]

Well, IMO it would be kind of similar to the 199, with the main point in the middle of the route. As for who wants to go from Indro to Chermiside/Aspley, what about people who may work on one side of town and live on the other? I picked Indro and Chermside/Aspley because they are bus hubs further out.

[Jon Bryant]

How about Indro (or beyond) to carindale? Or Capalaba? PA to Indro? Indro to Boggo Road? We have to stop thinking that all trips need are hub o hub and servicing along the route is not important.  To convert people from cars we need a connected city that allows us to move around quickly and dynamically. 

[ButFli]

Well, IMO it would be kind of similar to the 199, with the main point in the middle of the route. As for who wants to go from Indro to Chermiside/Aspley, what about people who may work on one side of town and live on the other? I picked Indro and Chermside/Aspley because they are bus hubs further out.

The 199 also has the advantage of being relatively direct. It still makes sense for someone wanting to go from one half of the route to the other to catch the 199. Your route would only ever be used by passengers to travelling on either side of UQ because for travel via UQ there is always going to be a more direct and faster route. You are better of splitting the route into two to increase reliability.

The 199 is also quite short at about 40 minutes end to end. That is shorter than most single-sided routes. Indooro to Aspley via UQ certainly is not that.

[somebody]

2 routes a connected city does not make I am sorry

I agree with this, but there are bigger fish to fry at present.  The main game is city-suburbs travel.  Why not concentrate on that first?

How about Indro (or beyond) to carindale? Or Capalaba? PA to Indro? Indro to Boggo Road? We have to stop thinking that all trips need are hub o hub and servicing along the route is not important.  To convert people from cars we need a connected city that allows us to move around quickly and dynamically. 

That would be where there would be some advantage to what you are suggesting.  Taking your Indro-Boggo Rd example, you do have the option of 427/428/432 to UQ Chancellors Place, walk to UQ Lakes, bus to Boggo Rd.  It's not perfect, but it isn't a perfect world, so see my above comment.

The problem is that the journey planner doesn't think of things like walking UQ Chancellors Place to UQ Lakes, I don't think. 

105 fill that role to some degree at least.

That bus is needs its loops cut off the loops and the route re-organized.
Something needs to be done about 104, 108 and 107 as well.

From Vuchic (2005) "Urban Transit- Operations, Planning and Economics" (Basically the International Public Transport Bible), page 195 and 196:

Street transit often follows circuitous routing for collection/distribution in low-density suburban residential areas.
Such routing is, however acceptable only on the end sections of lines, where there are no through passengers.
It should not be used mid-route, since such alignment creates delays that are often unacceptable for passengers from outer areas.

Not sure why you have such a thing about 105/107/108.  Coming from Tennyson you can easily change at Yeerongpilly on the 105.  Problem is the train frequency.  I also don't at all understand your problem with 107 and 108.

[ButFli]

Taking your Indro-Boggo Rd example, you do have the option of 427/428/432 to UQ Chancellors Place, walk to UQ Lakes, bus to Boggo Rd.  It's not perfect, but it isn't a perfect world, so see my above comment.

That is because on the default settings, the walk from Chancellors Place to Lakes too far. If you up the walking distance to the max (4km) JP will suggest the connection sometimes. It is pretty rare because it requires the services to line up the right way, otherwise JP tells you to go via the city because it is faster. If you up the walking speed setting you get suggestions to connect this way.

I used to live in St Lucia and very occasionally JP would suggest catching the 428 or 432 to UQ and then 109 to the city.

[Jon Bryant]

I find it funny that trunk routes on the busway are not supported because that requires a change of buses yet it is ok to hop of one service and walk across a Uni Campus to another route.  We need to create a connected city. Through routes that crisscross each other are needed.  Jumping off and on frequent services all over the city.

[somebody]

I find it funny that trunk routes on the busway are not supported because that requires a change of buses yet it is ok to hop of one service and walk across a Uni Campus to another route.  We need to create a connected city. Through routes that crisscross each other are needed.  Jumping off and on frequent services all over the city.

The savings of the trunk routes are minimal, if any.  The 150/157/111/160 for example is already regularly run by artics, and bi-artics have been deemed unsuitable for the busway.  Perhaps interchange at Altandi and Fruitgrove stations from 130/140/150 but that would be a slower journey.

I was just pointing out that there already some options for going via UQ, but I'm sure few do it that way.  Even for a Carindale-Indro trip, going via the city isn't that much slower than what you are suggesting.

In fact, with the example of the 111/160 don't you already have what you want?

Can you answer this question:

main game is city-suburbs travel.  Why not concentrate on that first?

?

[#Metro]

Jonno does have a point. And I would expect there would be huge patronage either way.

Routes 105 does a cross town run to Indooroopilly via the SE Busway, 108 is similar. And there are one or two trains in the morning that do the Tennyson Loop from the City-Tennyson-Indooroopilly-City. Another poster mentioned that it would not be worth running buses through UQ as it would take longer. But 105 and 108 do a similar route and probably take far longer than a direct route via UQ would.

Convincing UQ to allow BCC buses to travel on the university's own roads would be a major stumbling block.
Not sure it would be as important as improving the station capacity. So I'm undecided on this one.

The 150/157/111/160 for example is already regularly run by artics, and bi-artics have been deemed unsuitable for the busway.

What?   Bi-arctics cannot be used on the busway? I'm curious to know why, this is the first time I have heard about this.
I've heard that superbuses carrying 110 passengers (isn't that term becoming a bit overused) are on the busway but only Logan Buses own them. Is this right?

[Jon Bryant]

Happy To. Whilst the city suburb trips are important I think cross city routes are equally important and will take pressure off the city-suburb routes.  The whole TransApex plan is based on moving people around the city.  Wrong mode but right idea.  If we look at road trips they are predominantly around the city not to it.

I don't agree that a trip through the city will be slower than a route across the city.  The connection time in the CBD would make that impossible and usually invokes a walk to a hard to located bus stop.

I would suggest anything serviced by a artics and biarticsbis a trunk route.

[somebody]

What?   Bi-arctics cannot be used on the busway? I'm curious to know why, this is the first time I have heard about this.

Sorry, should have said "I've read that bi-artics are unsuitable for the busway".

I think the reasons are the Melbourne St portal, and for the Captain Cook Bridge, getting through the loop heading north where you get off the busway.  Here's where it has been mentioned on ATDB: http://busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=45475#p521999 (I am NOT SM247 who made the statement, but I respect his knowledge).

usually invokes a walk to a hard to located bus stop.

Which is one of the real problems with our system.  I banged on about this perhaps not enough in "30 issues ..."

It took me about 15 minutes to find the 109 stop when I knew it was Adelaide St approaching George St.  Who would think it would be heading in the wrong direction?

[Jon Bryant]

What a critical design fault with the busway.  Designed so that the biggest buses can not use it...not Smart at all...cheaper no doubt but stupid.

I truely think the overly flexible location of bus stops, some odd direction of buses, stops every 200m and routes that wander all over suburbs are all key aspects to why our buses systems fails to attract the causal/infrequent user as it is simply too daunting to work out.  This is why I support major trunk routes (bus way and bus lane) with major "stations/stops" every 800 metres (i.e. a 10 min walk from most houses) with frequent BUZ style services on all major roads criss crossing our city.  Yes this is moving buses closer to a rail mode of operation but this mode of operation increases the usability of the system.   

[Golliwog]

It took me about 15 minutes to find the 109 stop when I knew it was Adelaide St approaching George St.  Who would think it would be heading in the wrong direction?

But doesn't the journey planner also give you a stop number? Off the top of my head its No.17? Plus doesn't the route map show how it goes around the block in the city.

I still think not allowing a connection from UQ Lakes to the local streets is ridiculous. Even if you don't have a large number of routes using it, it would still allow more felxible bus timetabling as an out of service bus could use it as a shortcut to get to its next run. Also, what is the patronage of the new 77 route? Are there many uni students using it from the northside?

What a critical design fault with the busway.  Designed so that the biggest buses can not use it...not Smart at all...cheaper no doubt but stupid.

I truely think the overly flexible location of bus stops, some odd direction of buses, stops every 200m and routes that wander all over suburbs are all key aspects to why our buses systems fails to attract the causal/infrequent user as it is simply too daunting to work out.  This is why I support major trunk routes (bus way and bus lane) with major "stations/stops" every 800 metres (i.e. a 10 min walk from most houses) with frequent BUZ style services on all major roads criss crossing our city.  Yes this is moving buses closer to a rail mode of operation but this mode of operation increases the usability of the system.   

I agre fully with the major trunk routes and frequent routes on all the major roads.

[somebody]

But doesn't the journey planner also give you a stop number? Off the top of my head its No.17? Plus doesn't the route map show how it goes around the block in the city.

It probably does give the stop number, but I would not have remembered it.  I'm not too sure how knowing it would have helped me find it though.

It's not real easy to find the PDF timetable from the journey planner so getting a map, while possible, is not that easy.

[ButFli]

What a critical design fault with the busway.  Designed so that the biggest buses can not use it...not Smart at all...cheaper no doubt but stupid.

To be fair I don't think anyone had considered the possibility of a bi-arctic bus when the SE Busway was built. IIRC they were planning on phasing out artic buses altogether back then.

[#Metro]

 Long Post Warning

Sorry, should have said "I've read that bi-artics are unsuitable for the busway".

I think the reasons are the Melbourne St portal, and for the Captain Cook Bridge,
getting through the loop heading north where you get off the busway.  Here's where it has
been mentioned on ATDB: http://busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=45475#p521999
(I am NOT SM247 who made the statement, but I respect his knowledge).

If it is true then what will happen to the Lord Mayor's Mass Transit Report (2007)
which hinges on bi-articulated buses carrying 180 passengers on the busway to cope with demand?
It also could alter the cost estimates if alterations had to be performed on the busway
(platform lengthening, fix for Melbourne Street Portal).

Superbus Articles
Superbus trail for Brisbane

UP TO three 25m-long super buses that can carry 200 passengers could be trialled on Brisbane's busways
, Transport Minister Paul Lucas revealed today.

Contrary to earlier reports on brisbanetimes.com.au, south-east Queensland would not be trialling 200 of the buses.
Similar buses, called LighTrams, run in Switzerland and are used as trolley buses powered by overhead cables.
Mr Lucas said if they were trialled in Brisbane, the buses would not be powered in the same way, but would run
on biodiesel fuel and be used only on Brisbane's busways.

It is understood the "super buses" would look like the current "banana buses" but they would have an extra
concertina tacked on the back. "These super buses are about 25m long and can carry about 200 people - three times
as many people as a normal bus and more than twice that of existing articulated buses," Mr Lucas said

Giant Superbuses to hit Brisbane Streets

The State Government will shop overseas for a fleet of giant 100-seater 'superbuses' to ease the traffic squeeze.

The mammoth vehicles will be three times the length of a regular bus
and at least a third larger than articulated "banana buses" currently on the road.
Premier Anna Bligh will invite Australian and international companies to come up with
a design - and name their price - from next week. The giant buses will be trialled in Brisbane's busway network,
but the government has not ruled out deploying them on other busy South East Queensland routes if needs arise.

Although this is a Superbus apparently, capacity is 112 but still short of the 180pax:
http://www.translink.com.au/mediarelease.php?id=91

[somebody]

Those links were from 2007 and 2008.  Seems to support the suggestion that they've decided against it.

Honestly, I would be very concerned about the idea of running bi-artics through the Cultural Centre and Mater Hill.  Perhaps if it heads via the Captain Cook Bridge, but that has its own issues.

A further problem would be that there are no suitable stops in QSBS or KGSBS as far as I know.

As for what will happen about the Lord Mayor's report?  I'd suggest simply greater frequency to 111/160

[somebody]

Whilst the city suburb trips are important I think cross city routes are equally important and will take pressure off the city-suburb routes.  

We may have to agree to disagree on this point, I'm afraid.