Too Many Routes on the Bus Ways

[Jonno]

Had to go from the City to Mater Hospital on Friday.  Easy enough on way out as I jumped on the 66 as I knew it ran through KGS.  I still find the PIDs confusing as they are in platform order not time.  Took me 2-3 mins to work out if 66 or 111 would arrive first.

On the way back was another story with 8-10 buses arriving at once and it is impossible to work out there on the spot which one to take.  Is it going to KGS or QSBS or which street.  And I am a PT hardened traveling.  If I was a new user of the bus way I would have run 100 miles.  Luckily the last was a 111 which I jumped on. 

I think it is time to convert the busway to 10 or so main trunk routes, ramp up/combine the frequency and have them all run through KGS, Roma Street, etc.

[somebody]

Only the 111 & 66 connect KGSBS & Mater Hill. And 222 in peak.

What I don't understand is why you were so keen to get in to KGSBS?  Wouldn't Adelaide St have done?

Once, I was caught out by one of the 184/185/210/212 at the Cultural Centre, which display "City-Valley" and I wanted Adelaide St, but these run via Elizabeth St.  Needs a KISS.

[Jonno]

Yes but which ones run Adelaide Street?  It is not the stop that matters but the consistency of the stop used.  Even worse is catching a bus further south and wondering if the bus get off before the Mater.  There are just too many unknowns and variables for the casual user.

[somebody]

It's really only the routes I listed which are a problem.  555 desto shows "Brisbane City/Elizabeth St", 105 etc show "City Gardens".  You have to know the code for those ones, I suppose. Could be more obvious, but probably workable.

[#Metro]

When the busway first opened, I used to get very confused on the busway because I wanted my bus for Adelaide street.
Which bus went to Adelaide Street?- well there were half a dozen numbers to memorize and check. Its not a problem now.. but I can see how new people can find it confusing.

The other problem was assuming that all buses that go down the SE Busway stop all stations like a train. Not so!
I remember catching a 130 and then panicking when I pressed the button, and the bus just kept going and going, flying past my stop.

[#Metro]

by pure co-incidence: http://www.humantransit.org/2010/11/connections-vs-complexity.html

This problem is also the cause of others, such as the excessive volume of buses, most of them not full, choking the narrow streets of the CBD.  Obviously, if you didn't feel constrained to run direct service from everywhere to the CBD, you'd organize some buses to feed others (or to feed trains).  This would give you fewer buses in the CBD, with heavier loads on those buses, and thus a stronger moral claim to transit priorities, such as exclusive lanes.

We have this problem IMHO.

Cross town, circle lines and feeder services are seem to be avoided like the plague in Brisbane.

[somebody]

Interesting link, TT.  I especially liked this bit:

Finally, since I've now referred twice to smartcards solving the problem, let me be clear:  Technology can solve information problems, but not ethical ones.  Connection penalties based on the inadequacy of information-tracking tools should fade away once smartcards provide the necessary tool.  But technology won't change the poltical problem: to eliminate fare penalties without losing revenue, you will probably have to raise the single-ride cash fare to compensate.  Effectively you'll be admitting that you've been subsidizing some riders at the expense of others, and you should expect all the blowback that we see anywhere when we tell people that we're removing a subsidy on which they've come to rely.

That's the real problem, and courageous leadership is the only solution for it.

Can you say: capping?

[#Metro]

But aren't transfers free anyway? Maybe not?
For example, if I catch the CityGlider bus to South Brisbane and then hop on the Gold Coast train to Varsity lakes, is my train ride free???

[Gazza]

For example, if I catch the CityGlider bus to South Brisbane and then hop on the Gold Coast train to Varsity lakes, is my train ride free???

That's not the same though because what's your desired final destination? South Bris or Varsity?

A fare structure only becomes unfair if it makes one person pay more than someone else even if they are travelling equivalent distances because of a change of vehicle or similar.

In this case, say you boarded at Eagle Junction in Z-2  and travelled direct without transfer to Varsity on an ex Airport train.
Another person takes a Cityglider from West End Ferry to South Bris, then transfers to a GC train to Varsity.

In the end, both people would be charged the same fare, so therefore the fair structure is not penalising anybody.

[ButFli]

For example, if I catch the CityGlider bus to South Brisbane and then hop on the Gold Coast train to Varsity lakes, is my train ride free???

That's not the same though because what's your desired final destination? South Bris or Varsity?

A fare structure only becomes unfair if it makes one person pay more than someone else even if they are travelling equivalent distances because of a change of vehicle or similar.

In this case, say you boarded at Eagle Junction in Z-2  and travelled direct without transfer to Varsity on an ex Airport train.
Another person takes a Cityglider from West End Ferry to South Bris, then transfers to a GC train to Varsity.

In the end, both people would be charged the same fare, so therefore the fair structure is not penalising anybody.

But here we have a situation where two people are paying the same fare even though one is traveling a shorter distance. Is that fair?

[Golliwog]

Not exactly, but the main assumption made to create the TL zone structure is that the majority of passengers will be travelling to/from Brisbane CBD. Not the greatest assumption to make, but given the busway and railway line structures, mostly valid.

[Gazza]

But here we have a situation where two people are paying the same fare even though one is traveling a shorter distance. Is that fair?

That's inherent in any system with zones, since people can board near the 'inner' border and the 'outer' border of a zone. But it's reasonably fair IMO. Sitting here I'm certainly not losing any sleep over the set up of fares here...certainly beats Melbourne (not enough zones), Adelaide (flat fare generally) and Sydney (Flat out stupid).

Who knows, perhaps in the future when you had 100% smart card usage they could just set a GPS coordinate for each stop, and your fare is charged as an "as the crow flies" distance between two points. It wouldn't be predictable exactly how much it would cost prior to travel (But neither is a taxi or a trip in a private car) but it could be the fairest structure of all.

[ButFli]

But here we have a situation where two people are paying the same fare even though one is traveling a shorter distance. Is that fair?

That's inherent in any system with zones, since people can board near the 'inner' border and the 'outer' border of a zone. But it's reasonably fair IMO. Sitting here I'm certainly not losing any sleep over the set up of fares here...certainly beats Melbourne (not enough zones), Adelaide (flat fare generally) and Sydney (Flat out stupid).

Who knows, perhaps in the future when you had 100% smart card usage they could just set a GPS coordinate for each stop, and your fare is charged as an "as the crow flies" distance between two points. It wouldn't be predictable exactly how much it would cost prior to travel (But neither is a taxi or a trip in a private car) but it could be the fairest structure of all.

Well hang on a minute. You opened your statement by saying that a fare system was unfair if people traveling the same distance pay different fares. Surely that is also "inherent in any system with zones". If a situation where passengers traveling different distances pay the same fare is fair, why have you singled out flat-fare-Adelaide as being unfair? By your arguement, a system where every passenger pays the same fare no matter how long their journey is fair!

[Jonno]

Getting off topic

[Gazza]

^I singled out Adelaide because in general I'm opposed to flat fares because it means long distance commuters get it too cheap, and short distance travellers pay too much, relative to the resources they are using.

By your arguement, a system where every passenger pays the same fare no matter how long their journey is fair!

Where did I say those words precisley?

I said:

A fare structure only becomes unfair if it makes one person pay more than someone else even if they are travelling equivalent distances because of a change of vehicle or similar.

"Because of a change of vehicle or similar".

Perhaps I worded my original post poorly. The original quote from Jarret Walkers blog spoke of transfer penalties, which is the 'unfair' thing we are talking about.

I have used buses in LA. If you catch one 4 blocks south you pay $1.25. If you catch one 2 blocks south, and then another 2 blocks west, you pay $2.50.
That's unfair because because you're paying double for a trip of similar distance because you have to transfer.

We don't have that problem.

[somebody]

But here we have a situation where two people are paying the same fare even though one is traveling a shorter distance. Is that fair?

That's inherent in any system with zones, since people can board near the 'inner' border and the 'outer' border of a zone. But it's reasonably fair IMO. Sitting here I'm certainly not losing any sleep over the set up of fares here...certainly beats Melbourne (not enough zones), Adelaide (flat fare generally) and Sydney (Flat out stupid).

I agree with this.  It mightn't be fair, but it isn't that much of a problem.  I do not think many are traveling Nambour-Coolangatta because its cheap.

I'm more concerned with the high flag fall and low off peak discount components of the fare structure.

Getting off topic

Indeed.  I suppose an additional problem for getting the first available bus on the busway to the city is the ridiculous city stop location of the 109.  What should the desto say for that one?  I can't answer that, and there are other reasons to move it into KGSBS, such as connecting to Roma St.

[Golliwog]

Indeed.  I suppose an additional problem for getting the first available bus on the busway to the city is the ridiculous city stop location of the 109.  What should the desto say for that one?  I can't answer that, and there are other reasons to move it into KGSBS, such as connecting to Roma St.

Could go with Brisbane Library or something.

[somebody]

Saw a 172 i/b at the Cultural Centre and the desto said "City" rather than "City Gardens".  Also, QSBS bound routes should say QSBS on the desto.  Electronic displays at stations say so.

Jonno, I know you would much prefer feeder and trunk, but would you agree that fixing the destos would make the system adequately legible?

[#Metro]

It would help. Problem is so many destinations, it's not possible to fit them all in.
Some routes should be looked at for combining. Routes 174/175 are almost identical except for a small bit at the terminus.

They might be better off being combined into a single BUZ 175 and the route at the end altered.

Using larger buses on the busway would also make it more efficient because you would use the bigger vehicle with higher loadings and just 1 operator.
Some routes would need to be through routes though. Basically all the BUZ routes should stay as through routes. These could be upgraded to bigger arctic buses too.

The problem is that the busway stations lack interchange areas. Where does a feeder bus stop??? On the platform?

[Jonno]

Whilst the destinations may help there are just too many and the overall efficiency, utlisation, congestion or bottlenecks are not solved.  Not all routes need to go to the same stop but a more simple number of routes makes it easier (e.g KGSB, Adelaide Street, QSBS and Elizabeth Street).

[somebody]

I wouldn't agree with combining 174 & 175.  174 is needed to serve Creek Rd & Newnham Rd whilst the 175 is needed to serve the bottom of Logan Rd.  You could serve Newnham Rd with a Cavendish Rd service, but I don't see that possibility being an improvement.

[#Metro]

City via Adelaide Street
City via Elizabeth Street
City via Alice Street
City via Queen Street Busway
City via Roma Street Busway

Much simpler. Nobody knows where City Gardens (Roma St Gardens or Botanical?) and City "Precincts" are.

[somebody]

City via Adelaide Street
City via Elizabeth Street
City via Alice Street
City via Queen Street Busway
City via Roma Street Busway

Much simpler. Nobody knows where City Gardens (Roma St Gardens or Botanical?) and City "Precincts" are.

Actually, I think the hyphenation was a good idea.  It doesn't make sense to say "City via Roma St" when Roma St is the terminus.

City Precincts is probably OK, unless you can think of a better idea, but I agree about "City Gardens"

[#Metro]

Nobody knows what "City Precincts" are.

[somebody]

But the only way to change it would be for the 344 & 384 to display City-Alice St via Wharf St, and the 136, 206 & 457-9 display Wharf St via Margaret St.  May be better.

[O_128]

would it be possible to upgrade qsbs to a KGS style station or is it structually impossible

[somebody]

would it be possible to upgrade qsbs to a KGS style station or is it structually impossible

Huh?  I would presume it is impossible to put stops opposite QSBS B, probably because of building basements/structures in the way.  If that's what you mean.

There's nothing really wrong with QSBS A & C, it's just a terminating station rather than a through running one like KGSBS