BUZ 180/185?

[#Metro]

Cavendish Road

180 http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/100726_P179,180,181,186,P189.pdf
185 http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/100510_184,N184,185.pdf

The 185 could be simplified to run straight down Ham Rd, Wishart and then continue as normal. I'm not sure why it runs through the backstreets of what seems to be a perfectly square grid of roads.

[somebody]

The 185 could be simplified to run straight down Ham Rd, Wishart and then continue as normal. I'm not sure why it runs through the backstreets of what seems to be a perfectly square grid of roads.

That is also one of my suggestions.

Also, the 180 shouldn't use Logan Rd, but run via Cavendish Rd & Chatsworth Rd.

I could also add that Stanley Rd, Carina and Chatsworth Rd/Samuel St/Winstanley St aren't properly served.  Logan Rd service (174/175) until Creek Rd should be 15 minutes until after 11pm.  Similarly for Waterworks Rd/Musgrave Rd east of Coopers Camp Rd (380/381).  And also Wynnum Rd, Old Northern Rd and Sangate Rd.

There are a number of issues off the BUZ network.

[#Metro]

Which one, 180 or 185? IMHO only one needs to be BUZzed.

[somebody]

Which one, 180 or 185? IMHO only one needs to be BUZzed.

180 (revised).

185 is a bit of a welfare route IMO.  You don't need to go via the Stanley Bridge to reach Cavendish Rd.  It only makes sense for those that can't manage to walk 600m or so.

[somebody]

Also, the 180 shouldn't use Logan Rd, but run via Cavendish Rd & Chatsworth Rd.

I could also add that Stanley Rd, Carina and Chatsworth Rd/Samuel St/Winstanley St aren't properly served.  Logan Rd service (174/175) until Creek Rd should be 15 minutes until after 11pm.  Similarly for Waterworks Rd/Musgrave Rd east of Coopers Camp Rd (380/381).  And also Wynnum Rd, Old Northern Rd and Sangate Rd.

I suppose it could just as easily be argued that you should keep the 180 on Holland Rd and provide an alternative service for Chatsworth Rd/Samuel St/Winstanley St.  (speaks quietly) 200.  Ouch!  Obviously, alternate service for Old Cleveland Rd would need to be provided too!

Still, I think the residents would be up in arms if there was the slightest suggestion that the 200 would be taken from Old Cleveland Rd, even if the 250+270 provide the same service on the same (or better) frequency, and the same route & stops (I know they don't do that currently).

[#Metro]

I don't know. I don't really mind, so long as one BUZ goes down that way and it is reasonably direct etc. So you think 180?
I'm starting to think that minimal fiddling with routes /re-routings etc. It might be better. So altering BUZ 200 is a no-no IMHO.

In large routes such as 599/598 there would be large gains from cutting "fat" simply because the route is so big.

You are welcome to disagree with me, but on the scale of things, a route change here and there might bring in a few more pax, but nowhere near as much as simply upping the frequency and BUZzing a route.

Focusing on building  a core 15 minute frequent network

consisting of bus/ferry/rail, and mapping that and its connections on to one map (along with frequent corridors) is my view of the main game. There are a few more arms to add to the "Starfish" radial bus (BUZ 450/100/196/375/180) routes and boosting frequency on rail before BUZzing the GCL (598/599) can put a circle around it all. This will create the bare minimum anywhere to anywhere network with the least amount of time, money and hissing from the authorities.

[somebody]

Yes, I don't think messing with the 200 would be happening, but with a clean sheet of paper, it probably should have gone that way.  Still, I can see that Old Cleveland Rd was the priority.

Which takes us back to a BUZ 180, but via Chatsworth Rd.  I would also move the 170 to the Cornwall St & Juliette St ramps to compensate for the loss of the 180 on that part of Logan Rd.