Indicative 2031 passenger rail services plan: Bus-Rail interchanges required

[#Metro]

The following stations are listed on p 50 of the plan as stations where urbanlink and expresslink trains will stop.
large interchanges with feeder services should be constructed at these locations. It looks like the Yeerongpilly stop which then became coopers plains will later become salisbury...

By doing this, people can catch a bus to the local station, hop on an expresslink or coastlink service and zoom to the CBD.

Kippa Ring- bus/rail interchange
Strathpine- bus/rail interchange
Northgate - bus/rail interchange
Manly station- bus/rail interchange (has a slip lane already)
Salisbury- bus/rail interchange (connect to Garden City and Griffith Uni)
Loganlea- bus rail interchange
Buranda- bus/rail interchange
Flagstone- bus/rail interchange
Beaudesert- bus/rail interchange

[Golliwog]

I disagree about the need for interchanges to be large. Even if Enogerra station had feeder routes, the bus interchage really doesn't need to have as many bus bays as it does (I think it has 6?). I think having 3 or maybe 4 bays would be sufficient.

[somebody]

I would disagree with Buranda.  Far too close to the CBD.  Manly, Northgate, Flagstone, Beaudesert would have no where for a bus to go after a train gets there as far as I can see.  And the last two don't have a promised train line.

[#Metro]

Enogerra station is very underutilized.
The interchanges will have to be large (think Nerang Station on the Gold Coast or Garden City Interchange) or at least have the space to expand as the trains will be running express from these stations, and are likely to be popular.

Some of these places don't have anything at the moment. How are people supposed to get there?

Point taken re: Buranda. But as the site will be re-developed anyway, a good bus bay would not be too much to ask.
Certainly when the Cleveland line is down for weekend maintainence.

[#Metro]

Manly, Northgate, Flagstone, Beaudesert would have no where for a bus to go after a train gets there as far as I can see.  And the last two don't have a promised train line.

These are where all the express trains appear to all stop (Express link/Urban link/Coast Link) if people could just get to the local station by bus from surrounding areas, they could have a blisteringly fast trip to the CBD. If people were able to get to Manly by bus, they could jump on an Expresslink train which stops only at Buranda and Park Rd before entering the CBD stations.

It's a pretty poor situation if the train station is near, but not so near to walk to it. People can't be expected to drive there as carparks are limited and expensive. Its not sensible to expect only walk-up pax to access the rail station. A direct bus to the CBD from Manly or Loganlea is also not going to be competitive with an express train.

There seems to be a lot of resistance to making it easier for more people to get easy access to their local rail station, and I'm not sure why this is.

[somebody]

Buranda already has the busway station.  It's enough.

[haakon]

Buranda already has the busway station.  It's enough.

Indeed, I've used Buranda as an interchange point between the Cleveland line and heading south down the SE Bussway.

[somebody]

There seems to be a lot of resistance to making it easier for more people to get easy access to their local rail station, and I'm not sure why this is.

With Manly, the coast is walking distance from the station.  Going the other way, why should you expect people to backtrack to put up with a line as awful as the Cleveland line?

Not sure what you are thinking of at Northgate either.

But the main thing is that the service is far more likely to be worse overall than the radial bus network.

[#Metro]

Buranda already has the busway station.  It's enough.

Perhaps not an interchange, but when it gets re-developed a proper bus bay for buses to pull into and when rail buses operate. The area outside buranda is extremely dangerous for pedestrians as it is.

Express Link and Coast Link services will stop at Northgate. Express Link will stop at Manly, and if O_128 says is right, will shave time off the train trip. So people should have easy access to this than suffer an all stops and transfer.

Are you OK with the general idea that people should generally have access to their local rail station by feeder bus (in addition to walking, P+R, and bicycle).

Agree the radial 599/598 cross GCL route & network needs fixing up.

[somebody]

Are you OK with the general idea that people should generally have access to their local rail station by feeder bus (in addition to walking, P+R, and bicycle).

Not if it means sacrificing the radial network to achieve it!

What sort of loads do the feeder buses we do have get?  I'm thinking of: 462, 451, 396-9.  No doubt lots of others.

Even if Manly does see express trains, they'll be doing well to save 10 minutes off the trip, which is still likely to be slower than radial bus network improvements.

[#Metro]

Not if it means sacrificing the radial network to achieve it!

Some will have to be altered. I've given examples for the Western Suburbs. Again, it works in Perth.
It's mainly the slower, less frequent ones that need looking at.

I think it is only fair and sensible that people should be able to access their local railway station, on a bus, like Perth allows.

See: http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

What sort of loads do the feeder buses we do have get?  I'm thinking of: 462, 451, 396-9.  No doubt lots of others.

Many of these routes don't have the frequency, design, connecting train frequency and timed co-ordination that would encourage their use. Which is why they should be reviewed. Melbourne SmartBus and Perth does not seem to have trouble.

As STB pointed out earlier there are popular ones, and not so popular ones. This is why the TTC and TransPerth should be involved as sounding-boards in their review. It works in Perth.

Even if Manly does see express trains, they'll be doing well to save 10 minutes off the trip, which is still likely to be slower than radial bus network improvements.

Anyone who lives out in this area have an opinion on this?

[#Metro]

There is a nice diagram on p46 on how this works.

There are 2 parts to this:

1. Reforming the existing feeder services, which are downright shocking
2. Altering some direct routes (the western suburbs buses for example).

The plan states that existing services would be unchanged (why?) and that only new services would be feeders.
The escape clause there is the word largely.
Not sure how large "largely" is, but again the Western Suburbs routes should really be feeding rail services.

For busways, you could imagine the feeder services as already being incorporated into the route (the non-busway street running bit). Now, the Western Suburbs has no Western Busway, but it does have a railway where there would be one, so what you do is run the buses to the rail stations.

The current situation in the Western Suburbs for most, but not all, bus routes would be like having the SE Busway, but then refusing to run services on it, and instead run them on the parallel freeway (Western Freeway) or logan road (Coronation Drive)! Its madness.

PT 5 Trunk and feeder design

As the public transport system expands, moving to 'trunk and feeder' design for public transport services will improve
services and make it easy to understand for passengers. Under trunk and feeder
design, the UrbanLink bus and rail routes are supported by local bus feeder services
to provide easy connections to all parts of the city.

The alternative is the traditional 'single seat' bus planning approach which attempts to provide a large range of
services connecting all parts of the city to its centre.
In a large city where there are thousands of destinations to be serviced, adopting a 'single seat' approach results
in a complicated service network with low frequencies on all routes.

Figure 5.6 (p.46) illustrates how 'trunk and feeder' network design allows demands to be consolidated, enabling high service
frequencies on the trunk routes. Adopting this design for the future network will support delivery of the UrbanLink 'turn
up and go' services, with shorter wait times on trunk routes and a better levelof service on feeder routes. Strategic
transfer points will be located at transit hubs (see Part B, priority for action 1), allowing passengers to access destinations
anywhere in the city.

Existing single seat services will operate largely unchanged, as trunk and feeder
design is applied to new services and service upgrades as demand grows.

Improving the quality and efficiency of key public transport stations will be important to support the move towards a 'trunk and feeder' network design. The TransLink Transit Authority has a program for the development and upgrade of stations,
which includes identifying the role of stations in a formal hierarchy to inform the station design and facilities needed.

- page 45

[#Metro]

As cities grow, the travel time advantages of the Connective Network increase.  For example, suppose that instead of having three residential areas and three activity centers, we had six of each.  In this case, the direct-service network would have 36 routes, while the connective network would have only six.  You can run the numbers yourself, but the answer is that the Direct Service network still takes 35 minutes, while the Connective network is down to only 25 minutes, because of the added frequency.

Most transit networks start out as Direct Service networks with relatively little focus on connections, but as the city grows bigger and more complex, connections become more important.  In most cases, though, there's a transition from a Direct Service network to a Connective one, a transition that often requires severing direct links that people are used to in order to create a connection-based structure of frequent service that is more broadly useful and legible. 

(bolding added)

Extracts from Jarrett Walker's Human Transit Blog "Why transferring is good for you and your city"
http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html