Sunnybank-Browns Plains Line

[#Metro]

The image here is from Google Maps. It is reproduced here for the purpose of research, criticism, study and review.

[#Metro]

Suggested stations (approximate)

Stage 1 (suggested)
* Altandi
* Netting Street Shops
* Sunnybank Hills Shoppingtown
* Calamvale
* Drewvale (Park and Ride)
* Browns Plains (Grand Plaza) (Park and Ride)

Stage 2 (suggested)
* Regents Park (?)
* Boronia Heights

Stations and lines may be elevated. Park and Ride services will extend the catchment so that people from as far as Beaudesert can catch the train.
Constructive ideas about construction, merit, timing, etc welcome. May be staged according to need/available funds.
Re: the image- bits got cut off/out of alignment there in the middle. Can't help that.

[#Metro]

Suggested details

Stage 1 (Altandi to Browns Plains): 9.12 km
Stage 2 (Browns Plains to Boronia Heights) 3.57 km

Estimated time to travel on extended section:
(average train speed or 2.1 minutes per km)

Stage 1 (Altandi to Browns Plains): 20 minutes
Stage 2 (Browns Plains to Boronia Heights): 7.5 minutes

Estimated rough time to travel to Central (assume ideality)

Express Altandi to Park Road
from Browns Plains: 40 minutes
from Boronia Heights: 48 minutes

All Stops-
from Browns Plains: 57 minutes
From Boronia Heights: 1 hour 5 minutes

Times are approximate. Faster trip will be possible if ICRCS tunnels are used.

NB: Not professional work. Not fit for any purpose but discussion.

[#Metro]

Main benefits for this proposal would be (in the future)

* Reduced congestion on freeways, busways and roads leading to the busway (due to higher capacity of rail)
* Freeing up buses for usage in other parts of Brisbane
* Delaying or avoiding the need to construct the Brisbane Metro
* Extending the life of the busway before it needs to have capacity increasing measures in place
* Operational cost savings from the fact that rail takes less vehicles and staff per passenger and also has a lower operating cost/pax/km  over longer distances.
* Avoiding the need to put even more buses in this area.
* Land development and making of urban centres/TODS
* Time savings (if routed via the Cross River Rail)

In short, I think there is huge latent demand in this area, along this route. Buses are struggling to do a job that rail should be doing.
I can't imagine how this job might be done in 2016 or 2026 with a population growth, and more buses and the cost of doing that. The Lord Mayor's Mass Transit Report has suggestions for terminating BUZ 150 and 130 at Sunnybank and making people transfer.

Bus routes in this catchment area (may be more to be added):

140, 141, 142
[P129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 139 --->"130" series]
134, 135, 145, 155,
[150, 151, 152, 153, 156, P157 ---> "150" series]
540

From the 130 series alone, there is a bus approx. every 90 seconds stopping at Altandi Station (7am-8am, M-F).
From the 150 series, there is a bus approx every 90 seconds stopping at Gowan and Compton Roads.
Suggested rail frequency during peak hour: Every 10 minutes or less.

Guesstimated possible cost: 2 billion-3 billion, however the project could be done in stages by slow extension of the terminus end as resources and funding becomes available.

NB: Not professional work. Not fit for any purpose but discussion.

[somebody]

I think something more along the alignment of the SG and now DG freight corridor is far more constructible, and gives at least half as much bang, for somewhat less than half the price.

[Golliwog]

Given the roads this route seems to be following, as they mainly have a decent sized median strip, wouldn't it be better to build this route as a centre running light rail? Obviously there would still be some land take for stations, etc, but the width of this could be minimised by constructing stations similar to those on Paris's tram lines, where you have the platform on one side at a time (see below).
              ||
              ||
              ||Platform
Platform||
              ||
If that was the case, instead of finishing at the Beenleigh line, I would instead continue on to the SE Busway, but terminate it there. Thus it can act as a feeder to both the train line and the busway, and if trams run at a proper frequency, the routes that currently run down this main road to the busway can instead serve as a feeder to the tram line.

[#Metro]

The platform idea is an interesting and neat solution to a problem. Thanks for sharing it Golliwog.

[#Metro]

I think something more along the alignment of the SG and now DG freight corridor is far more constructible, and gives at least half as much bang, for somewhat less than half the price.

If there is no pressing budget constraint, the government should ideally pick the project with the greatest benefits.
If the area is a growth area, it should be remembered that there will be more people around to collect taxes and levies from to pay for the infrastructure that facilitated and enabled them to live there in the first instance.

Example:
Project A: Cost $1, benefits: $2, so the benefit: cost = 2
Project B: Cost $10 million, benefits: $20 million, so the benefit: cost = 2
Project C: Cost: $100 million, benefits $200 million, so the benefit: cost = 2
All projects have identical value for money, and all projects give $2 benefit for every $1 spent.

Project A might be giving everyone in the city an e-mail about the virtues of Public Transport.
Project B might be giving everyone a free government supplied push scooter to get to work.
Project C could be a BRT busway.

Project A is cheaper and has identical value-for money. For a fraction of the cost of Project C it buys a tiny amount of benefit.
However, its project C that should be done, because project C has the higher benefits for the community absolutely than all options. Indeed, 10 times as more benefits compared to project B, and 100 million times as more benefits than project A.

[somebody]

TT, the point I was making though is that most of the line along the SG corridor could be done above ground without property resumptions for a large part of its length.  Your line would have to be a tunnel for most of its length, I would suggest.

[#Metro]

It may be possible to elevate large sections of the line, like Airtrain.
Tunnels are expensive. Obviously, this is just an idea, it needs to be professionally evaluated.
And I'm not a professional.

As I always say, its not possible to devise a situation where there are only winners and no losers.
The aim is a situation where the winners gain more than the losers lose, and compensation is paid in accordance with
Aquisition of Land Act 1967 if required.
The technical name for this is Kaldor-Hicks efficiency [1].

For example, in the SG re-configuration the losers are:
* The community because the line was built too far away from most people to use and attracts lower patronage
* Freight operators (if the track is shared)
* Taxpayers (less efficient solution)
* Future governments as the problem will have to be re-visited in the future with another fix (more buses likely or a metro).
* Businesses because the rail line could have stimulated more jobs and employment around it
* Households, as rail stations appear to increase the values of property around them [2], [3].
* TransLink because it would still need to run a sea of buses through the area.

I can't guess what a professional evaluation might recommend here.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaldor-Hicks_efficiency
[2] http://www.yourmortgage.com.au/news/4120/default.aspx
[3] http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/light-rail-to-push-up-house-prices-20100312-q469.html

[#Metro]

TT, the point I was making though is that most of the line along the SG corridor could be done above ground without property resumptions for a large part of its length.  Your line would have to be a tunnel for most of its length, I would suggest.

Could I humbly suggest that this proposal be put up with a map and proposed stations in a separate thread similar to this one?
It can be a competing proposal to be looked at on its own merits.  

[mufreight]

The idea behind this proposal is simply that, it has obviously not been researched, is impractical in terms of cost and the topography of the proposed route and one must wonder if this is on reflection a deliberate attempt to destroy the credibility of this forum generaly by posting a number of less than realistic or impractical suggestions.
   

[ozbob]

I think in the longer term another commuter line in the standard gauge corridor may be more likely.  This has been mentioned elsewhere.

Ideas are fine, take 'em or leave 'em.

[mufreight]

For almost the entire length of the SG corridor there is sufficent room for the provision of a double track ng line parallel to the existing track without need for resumptions, the one exception that comes to mind is through Greenbank where the crossing loop restricts the avaliable space for a double track ng line.

[#Metro]

Well I'm not an engineer and not paid either, that's just how things are.
This area has high demand, this highlights the need for a study and community consultation into options on how to improve PT in this area for the long term.

The alternative would be:
1. Not to propose or discuss any proposals (against spirit of the forum)
2. Approach and pay independent transport analysts like Systemwide, Maunsell AECOM, or Veich Lister Consulting
at considerable expense! (not practical).

If there is another proposal that is better, then lets see it laid out, put in a separate thread including diagram, figures, possible locations for stations, route, estimates for costing and patronage, research and put to a poll in the next 7 days.

Hardly less realistic or practical than some other ideas like this one.

[stephenk]

I think in the longer term another commuter line in the standard gauge corridor may be more likely.  This has been mentioned elsewhere.

Ideas are fine, take 'em or leave 'em.

Precisely. Why build a very expensive underground line, when there is a nearby existing rail corridor that could be converted to passenger use at much lower cost. Even the standard gauge corridor cannot realistically run commuter services until the 1st cross river rail tunnel has been constructed.

Sorry, but this is yet another ill-thought out idea that is bringing down the standard of this forum.

[Golliwog]

Maybe an underground or raised heavy rail line isn't the best option. However, no one has said anything for/against the idea of this route being built as light rail that could run down the centre of the roads? As far as I'm aware, most of the roads TT's route follow all have a fairly wide median strip.

[ButFli]

The aim is a situation where the winners gain more than the losers lose, and compensation is paid in accordance with
Aquisition of Land Act 1967 if required.

So in summing up, it's the Constitution, it's Mabo, it's justice, it's law, it's the vibe and... no, that's it. It's the vibe!

But seriously, it's easy for us to draw lines on maps and post them on this forum with no regard for the families involved. Apart from it being a straight line from Altandi Station to Browns Plains Grand Plaza, is there any reason why OP has chosen the route? Do the poor families who's houses have been painted in Google Earth have anything to blame apart from a hasty brush? How can people claim to be starting a valid discussion when they are advocating the demolishing of hundreds of homes on the basis of a straight line? It just isn't right and it makes us all look foolish.

[Golliwog]

I think the idea was given the number of buses that travel that route, perhaps it would be a better solution to put in a rail line instead.

[somebody]

I think the idea was given the number of buses that travel that route, perhaps it would be a better solution to put in a rail line instead.

Given that the 130 is far busier than the 140, I'd suggest there's a case that patronage may be good on the route near the freight corridor.  Although that does miss the Mains Rd part of the route.

[Jon Bryant]

But seriously, it's easy for us to draw lines on maps and post them on this forum with no regard for the families involved. Apart from it being a straight line from Altandi Station to Browns Plains Grand Plaza, is there any reason why OP has chosen the route? Do the poor families who's houses have been painted in Google Earth have anything to blame apart from a hasty brush? How can people claim to be starting a valid discussion when they are advocating the demolishing of hundreds of homes on the basis of a straight line? It just isn't right and it makes us all look foolish.

It never stopped those planning the Ipswich or Logan freeways, Clem 7 or Airport Link.  Anybody who objected to these is told "It is progress. Your loosing your house for the greater good".

EDIT:  If nothing is done in this area then a freeway is a certaintity and it will wipe out many more houses.  Having said that there are many ways to provide this route/service increase without removing vast numbersif homes.  It is the dedicated, grade separated route and service increase that is important not necessarily the mode.

[Golliwog]

I think the idea was given the number of buses that travel that route, perhaps it would be a better solution to put in a rail line instead.

Given that the 130 is far busier than the 140, I'd suggest there's a case that patronage may be good on the route near the freight corridor.  Although that does miss the Mains Rd part of the route.

I was going to say, we really only have total patronage figures don't we? So its kind of hard to work out where they all come from.

[#Metro]

If other people have better ideas, put them up in their own thread with costings, line diagram, timeframe, research, proposed stations so that we may all vote on it and criticise and scrutinise it this week. Or forever hold your peace.

Precisely. Why build a very expensive underground line, when there is a nearby existing rail corridor that could be converted to passenger use at much lower cost. Even the standard gauge corridor cannot realistically run commuter services until the 1st cross river rail tunnel has been constructed.

Because Minister Rachel Nolan has already canned the idea of a rail line down the SG corridor on cost and patronage grounds.
That's why an alternative is needed. Of course by all means, put up your own proposal. There is huge demand in this area, the evidence is there from full buses running at extremely high frequency- every 90 seconds in peak hour. The demand is there, the capacity and the job is best done by rail where it is convenient for people to use, not skirting around the edges of the suburb.

It never stopped those planning the Ipswich or Logan freeways, Clem 7 or Airport Link.  Anybody who objected to these is told "It is progress. Your loosing your house for the greater good".


EDIT:  If nothing is done in this area then a freeway is a certainty and it will wipe out many more houses.  Having said that there are many ways to provide this route/service increase without removing vast numbers of homes.  It is the dedicated, grade separated route and service increase that is important not necessarily the mode.

This is exactly right Jonno. RBOTPIIWCBCAJFATE indeed. I want to be proactive not reactive. I agree that it is to easy to torpedo others' ideas and white ant/naysay them while having no developed alteratives of one's own rather than place due consideration on developing one's own proposal or constructively discussing the advantages, disadvantages and alterations required. A forum is a place to discuss and propose new ideas, it would be defeating the purpose of RAILBOT without these two things.

[somebody]

Because Minister Rachel Nolan has already canned the idea of a rail line down the SG corridor on cost and patronage grounds.

When that was originally proposed, they were talking about an SG DMU to Beaudesert.  Sigh.  That was a stupid proposal which was correctly torpedoed by the gov't.  Just the cost of building the stations for a system which could only handle a handful of trains per day was poor bang/buck.

[#Metro]

When that was originally proposed, they were talking about an SG DMU to Beaudesert.  Sigh.  That was a stupid proposal which was correctly torpedoed by the gov't.  Just the cost of building the stations for a system which could only handle a handful of trains per day was poor bang/buck.

It sounds like the focus on skimping on costs rather than maximize community benefits with that proposal led to its demise. Too much time spent on decreasing buck, rather than increasing bang. This is the problem- seeing costs and not seeing benefits. The cheapest PT system is no system at all because all its expenditures would be = $0 With the benefits so low, even reduced cost of not having to construct a parallel NG line would not be able to save that particular "DMU to Beaudesert" proposal.

For the record, the idea of a parallel NG line would be worthwhile to look at it. Though I think its someone else's turn to propose and take the heat on defending that idea.

PEAK hour commuters at Greenbank RSL's Park and Ride facility are queueing 80 deep to catch unairconditioned articulated buses.
Hundreds of passengers line up along Corporate Drive and into the Greenbank RSL car park between 7am and 8am each weekday to catch the 140, 141 and 142 services.

http://logan-west-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/cattle-call-for-greenbank-buses/

[stephenk]

If other people have better ideas, put them up in their own thread with costings, line diagram, timeframe, research, proposed stations so that we may all vote on it and criticise and scrutinise it this week. Or forever hold your peace.

Many of us don't submit "better ideas" because we generally agree with what is laid out in the Inner City Rail Capacity Study which has now progressed into the Cross River Rail Project. It is a great shame that the government is dragging it's heels on building the infrastructure projects required (CRR, CAMCOS, SEQIPP, and Kippa-Ring), but the actual plans themselves are pretty solid. Having recently spoken in great length with some the CRR planners as I had some reservations over the design, I have great faith in what planning they have done and what they are intending to do.

Sadly many of the recently suggested ideas on this forum are ill-thought out, poorly justified, and poorly researched. I've actually been quite mild in my criticism lately! Such poorly justified ideas would be unacceptable to suggest in an occupation or university course, as it would likely result in unemployment or a fail mark respectively. So why present such ideas on an internet forum? New ideas are great, but please keep them sensible.

[#Metro]

Many of us don't submit "better ideas" because we generally agree with what is laid out in the Inner City Rail Capacity Study which has now progressed into the Cross River Rail Project. It is a great shame that the government is dragging it's heels on building the infrastructure projects required (CRR, CAMCOS, SEQIPP, and Kippa-Ring), but the actual plans themselves are pretty solid. Having recently spoken in great length with some the CRR planners as I had some reservations over the design, I have great faith in what planning they have done and what they are intending to do.

Sadly many of the recently suggested ideas on this forum are ill-thought out, poorly justified, and poorly researched. I've actually been quite mild in my criticism lately! Such poorly justified ideas would be unacceptable to suggest in an occupation or university course, as it would likely result in unemployment or a fail mark respectively. So why present such ideas on an internet forum? New ideas are great, but please keep them sensible.

Lets see your proposal for this area rather than offer a multi-million dollar government commissioned report commissioned by a department with all the resources at its fingertips which is not original and is off topic regarding the task for this area. To take your analogy further, handing the ICRCS report in would constitute plagiarism in a university course. I understand your dislike for "ill-thought out, poorly justified, and poorly researched ideas" so now is the chance to offer your own comprehensively-thought out, well justified, and excellently researched ideas.

Now that you have criticised my proposal quite heavily,what is your alternative, superior, constructive proposal for the people living in Sunnybank, Browns Plains, Algester & Parkinson up and including the year 2026? The ICRCS didn't cover this area.

[stephenk]

Many of us don't submit "better ideas" because we generally agree with what is laid out in the Inner City Rail Capacity Study which has now progressed into the Cross River Rail Project. It is a great shame that the government is dragging it's heels on building the infrastructure projects required (CRR, CAMCOS, SEQIPP, and Kippa-Ring), but the actual plans themselves are pretty solid. Having recently spoken in great length with some the CRR planners as I had some reservations over the design, I have great faith in what planning they have done and what they are intending to do.

Sadly many of the recently suggested ideas on this forum are ill-thought out, poorly justified, and poorly researched. I've actually been quite mild in my criticism lately! Such poorly justified ideas would be unacceptable to suggest in an occupation or university course, as it would likely result in unemployment or a fail mark respectively. So why present such ideas on an internet forum? New ideas are great, but please keep them sensible.

Lets see your proposal for this area rather than offer a multi-million dollar government commissioned report commissioned by a department with all the resources at its fingertips which is not original and is off topic regarding the task for this area. To take your analogy further, handing the ICRCS report in would constitute plagiarism in a university course. I understand your dislike for "ill-thought out, poorly justified, and poorly researched ideas" so now is the chance to offer your own comprehensively-thought out, well justified, and excellently researched ideas.

Now that you have criticised my proposal quite heavily,what is your alternative, superior, constructive proposal for the people living in Sunnybank, Browns Plains, Algester & Parkinson up and including the year 2026? The ICRCS didn't cover this area.

If something is quoted, it isn't plagiarism 

I have already suggested my alternative (with conditions) in this thread. May I suggest reading the thread again?

[#Metro]

Lets see a map of this idea with possible locations for stations, an estimated cost/time and a poll to vote on it in a separate thread. It sounds good but has even less detail than mine.

Sadly many of the recently suggested ideas on this forum are ill-thought out, poorly justified, and poorly researched. I've actually been quite mild in my criticism lately! Such poorly justified ideas would be unacceptable to suggest in an occupation or university course, as it would likely result in unemployment or a fail mark respectively. So why present such ideas on an internet forum? New ideas are great, but please keep them sensible.

We don't all have to be Public Transport doyens to post on this forum. And how did "Infinity Loop Metro" get up and have praise heaped upon it?

It may be timely to recall a good piece of advice. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3291.msg19596#msg19596

We are a commuter group essentially, non expert.  Transport economists are commuters and are welcome here if they so desire of course.  A forum such as ours is basically a sounding board for 'non-expert'  comment, ideas and suggestions, informed by every day use of the public transport system.  So it is a view point that is very valuable even if non-expert.

Everyone please post your ideas and opinions. it matters not they may not be informed by the expert rigour of a discipline or whatever as we are what we are.

Public transport first choice!

[stephenk]

Lets see a map of this idea with possible locations for stations, an estimated cost/time and a poll to vote on it in a separate thread. It sounds good but has even less detail than mine.

Sadly many of the recently suggested ideas on this forum are ill-thought out, poorly justified, and poorly researched. I've actually been quite mild in my criticism lately! Such poorly justified ideas would be unacceptable to suggest in an occupation or university course, as it would likely result in unemployment or a fail mark respectively. So why present such ideas on an internet forum? New ideas are great, but please keep them sensible.

We don't all have to be Public Transport doyens to post on this forum. And how did "Infinity Loop Metro" get up and have praise heaped upon it?

It may be timely to recall a good piece of advice. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3291.msg19596#msg19596

We are a commuter group essentially, non expert.  Transport economists are commuters and are welcome here if they so desire of course.  A forum such as ours is basically a sounding board for 'non-expert'  comment, ideas and suggestions, informed by every day use of the public transport system.  So it is a view point that is very valuable even if non-expert.

Everyone please post your ideas and opinions. it matters not they may not be informed by the expert rigour of a discipline or whatever as we are what we are.

Public transport first choice!

I for one did not heap any praise on the "infinity loop idea". It would be an unreliable conflicting move nightmare.

You don't need to be a public transport expert, but some degree of common sense tends to help.

[shiftyphil]

In short, I think there is huge latent demand in this area, along this route. Buses are struggling to do a job that rail should be doing.

Some observations in that area.

Route 142 inbound is over capacity by 10-20 passengers for a few weeks now. More if there aren't enough artics.
Passengers spilling over to the 141 is overloading it now too. Currently rejecting passengers later in the route (on last 141 service).

The last few route 140 outbound services to Greenbank RSL are also regularly rejecting 20-30 passengers at Griffith Uni. There are no later services to Greenbank RSL.

We need rail service last week, not years in the future.

[stephenk]

In short, I think there is huge latent demand in this area, along this route. Buses are struggling to do a job that rail should be doing.

Some observations in that area.

Route 142 inbound is over capacity by 10-20 passengers for a few weeks now. More if there aren't enough artics.
Passengers spilling over to the 141 is overloading it now too. Currently rejecting passengers later in the route (on last 141 service).

The last few route 140 outbound services to Greenbank RSL are also regularly rejecting 20-30 passengers at Griffith Uni. There are no later services to Greenbank RSL.

We need rail service last week, not years in the future.

Improvements to the buses services on these routes (increased peak frequency, later operation to certain destinations) would solve these issues at a fraction of the cost of building an underground railway.

The 3031 document appears to shows suburban passenger services using the standard gauge corridor, so maybe one day this area may be served by rail.

[shiftyphil]

Improvements to the buses services on these routes (increased peak frequency, later operation to certain destinations) would solve these issues at a fraction of the cost of building an underground railway.

How many more buses can Mains Road/SE busway handle at peak? Starting to get some pretty good queues at some stations every morning.

(Of course, the counter-argument is how many more services can the rail network handle at the moment?)

The 3031 document appears to shows suburban passenger services using the standard gauge corridor, so maybe one day this area may be served by rail.

That's more likely than the underground route, but supposedly not enough demand/too expensive still: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_qld/Responses/1285-09.pdf
(Track has been dual-guaged since the petition)

[#Metro]

Improvements to the buses services on these routes (increased peak frequency, later operation to certain destinations) would solve these issues at a fraction of the cost of building an underground railway.

The 3031 document appears to shows suburban passenger services using the standard gauge corridor, so maybe one day this area may be served by rail.

I'm pretty sure that while reading Vucan Vuhic's Transport Operations and Economics, I read somewhere that when frequencies dip below something like 10 minutes or so, it makes more sense to increase the vehicle size rather than increase the frequency. A bus every 90 seconds really is extreme.

The Eastern Busway involved land resumptions, I'm sure that many other projects are the same. Once again, IMHO too much focus on  costs and watering down ideas so they don't "scare the horses"; There is huge demand in Sunnybank etc- Rail at a location that maximizes patronage.

PS: Welcome to the forum shiftyphil. Thank you for sharing your ideas.

[somebody]

How many more buses can Mains Road/SE busway handle at peak? Starting to get some pretty good queues at some stations every morning.

(Of course, the counter-argument is how many more services can the rail network handle at the moment?)

I would suggest that many, many more buses are able to be run over the Captain Cook Bridge and on the SE busway.  The Cultural Centre and Mater Hill are constraints, but they can be avoided.

Not very many more trains can run over the Merivale bridge, although cross river rail is addressing that constraint.

Do they still have the stupid rule that the 142 isn't allowed to accept standee passengers?  If you don't want to stand, nothing is stopping you from waiting until the next one.  I would agree that more artics are required.

[#Metro]

Do they still have the stupid rule that the 142 isn't allowed to accept standee passengers?  If you don't want to stand, nothing is stopping you from waiting until the next one.  I would agree that more artics are required.

It makes one wonder why the 112 seat superbuses aren't used here as a stop-gap measure.

[STB]

That's not a rule, it's law.  Standees aren't allowed to remain standing on any bus service beyond 25km from first stop to the next stop (as I understand it).

Eg: If the eastern peak hour Veolia bus routes had their next stop after Buranda at Capalaba then no standees would be allowed (or at least very close to being that), from the road distance involved between those two locations.

[shiftyphil]

I would suggest that many, many more buses are able to be run over the Captain Cook Bridge and on the SE busway.  The Cultural Centre and Mater Hill are constraints, but they can be avoided.

Griffith Uni gets queues up too sometimes, and that can't be routed around. It may not be stretched yet, but you can see the limit approaching.

Do they still have the stupid rule that the 142 isn't allowed to accept standee passengers?  If you don't want to stand, nothing is stopping you from waiting until the next one.  I would agree that more artics are required.

I believe it is still no standing on the 142.
The "next one" is tomorrow. That's a long time to wait.

[#Metro]

That's not a rule, it's law.  Standees aren't allowed to remain standing on any bus service beyond 25km from first stop to the next stop (as I understand it).

Eg: If the eastern peak hour Veolia bus routes had their next stop after Buranda at Capalaba then no standees would be allowed (or at least very close to being that), from the road distance involved between those two locations.

So even if you could get a superbus down there, nobody would be allowed to stand on it, defeating the purpose.
Makes sense now.

[stephenk]

That's not a rule, it's law.  Standees aren't allowed to remain standing on any bus service beyond 25km from first stop to the next stop (as I understand it).

Eg: If the eastern peak hour Veolia bus routes had their next stop after Buranda at Capalaba then no standees would be allowed (or at least very close to being that), from the road distance involved between those two locations.

OK, stupid idea of the week...

Add a stop within the 25km on the P142, and thus instantly increase the capacity of the bus.