Poll: 199 New Farm service via Ivory St?

[somebody]

Just like it says.  Should the 199 route via Ivory St or Warner St?

[STB]

If it wasn't for the taxis taking up the Valley precint and the lack of will to police the taxis blocking bus stops in the Valley area, then I'd prefer route 199 use Ann St and Warner St full time, and just leave route 195 to go via Ivory St (the peak version of route 196/197/199).

[somebody]

If it wasn't for the taxis taking up the Valley precint and the lack of will to police the taxis blocking bus stops in the Valley area, then I'd prefer route 199 use Ann St and Warner St full time, and just leave route 195 to go via Ivory St (the peak version of route 196/197/199).

195 just runs down Brunswick St & (IIRC) Oxlade Dr.  It doesn't cover the 199s Merthyr Rd and beyond service, or the Barker St-Merthyr Rd bit of the 196/197.

I'm sure you know that, but I'm just posting that to clarify it for others.

I'm a bit surprised, though, that you would advocate running via Warner St/Ann St even in peak time!  Isn't there a need for a faster peak service?  Or perhaps I'm not following what you are saying.

[ButFli]

I'm pretty cool with the 199 going straight down Brunswick St and left onto Ann St inbound. It's the Wickham St, Warner St, Ann St then Brunswick St zig zag outbound that I have a problem with. In peak times I'm sure it doubles the time of my bus trip home.

[somebody]

I'm pretty cool with the 199 going straight down Brunswick St and left onto Ann St inbound. It's the Wickham St, Warner St, Ann St then Brunswick St zig zag outbound that I have a problem with. In peak times I'm sure it doubles the time of my bus trip home.

I've added an option for that.  It's still a bit slower to use Ann St though, isn't it?

[ButFli]

I'm pretty cool with the 199 going straight down Brunswick St and left onto Ann St inbound. It's the Wickham St, Warner St, Ann St then Brunswick St zig zag outbound that I have a problem with. In peak times I'm sure it doubles the time of my bus trip home.

I've added an option for that.  It's still a bit slower to use Ann St though, isn't it?

A tiny bit slower but I think the slight delay is outweighed by the benefit of serving stops closer to the Valley.

[somebody]

Hmm, seems I'm in the minority here.

Would everyone agree with sending all the peak 199s via Ivory St, and having a different service along the 199 route which runs into the Valley, then Gipps St, Brunswick St and continues on to RBH?  Obviously, in the PM peak you would use Warner St instead of Gipps St.

[ButFli]

Then what about people who want to do Valley-New Farm?

[#Metro]

"Congestion Valley" is congested! Very true.
But the 199's very simple connection to Brunswick St is very valuable.

I'm afraid some other solution should be found. I don't mind 196 or 195s using the tunnel on a permanent basis (provided 196 is BUZzed).

The Ivory St tunnel is a nice tunnel, but it was built with cars in mind, not PT. A tunnel designed for PT would have buses go underground to an interchange station located directly next to the platforms at Fortitude Valley station, and then would have at least 2 surface exits- one to allow buses to go to New Farm, the other to allow buses to continue straight ahead.

The lower cost alternative would be to alter the operation of the couplet road system to allow 2 way traffic either for exclusive lanes for PT or mixed traffic. But I doubt that would ever happen unless it was an LRT project.

So you can see why the situation is like it is today...

[somebody]

Then what about people who want to do Valley-New Farm?

If you are sticking with via Warner St off peak, then you should do the same counter peak.  Or did you mean something else?

[ButFli]

Then what about people who want to do Valley-New Farm?

If you are sticking with via Warner St off peak, then you should do the same counter peak.  Or did you mean something else?

You said all peak 199s through Ivory St tunnel and add some other route that heads off towards RBH. I'm asking what happens who want to travel from the Valley into New Farm during the afternoon peak?

I must admit I didn't consider the 196/197 that would still take the usual route. I'm just not sure whether that would be enough.

[somebody]

You said all peak 199s through Ivory St tunnel and add some other route that heads off towards RBH. I'm asking what happens who want to travel from the Valley into New Farm during the afternoon peak?

Use the route which would be starting at RBH to New Farm, via Warner St.

[somebody]

A tunnel designed for PT would have buses go underground to an interchange station located directly next to the platforms at Fortitude Valley station, and then would have at least 2 surface exits- one to allow buses to go to New Farm, the other to allow buses to continue straight ahead.

That would only be useful for cross town trips, rather than CBD trips though.

[#Metro]

To be honest, yes there are 1 000 001 different projects like a tunnel in the valley that could speed things here and there and do this and that.

I don't see them constructing a dedicated bus station next to rail, although it would be a useful level of integration. At the moment buses must cross lanes from Wickham st and turn into Warner St under congested conditions. A tunnel would solve that and give a higher level of integration.

For the record the Clem 7 tunnel is directly under there too!
Sending 196 or 195 via Ivory Street seems practical, but even then there is mass congestion on both Adelaide and Brunswick street itself in peak hour, probably the reason why the tunnel was built in the first place.

I don't find the idea of adding more separate routes (like to RBH) appealing either. Wouldn't BUZ 375 do that job?
I'd rather have fewer, simpler, more frequent routes.

I'm dreaming...

[somebody]

I don't find the idea of adding more separate routes (like to RBH) appealing either. Wouldn't BUZ 375 do that job?

No.  It's OK heading towards New Farm, as you can use the 370/375/379 (334/335/346/353 won't do) to Warner St and then the 19x to New Farm, but its not so good towards RBH.  You have to get off in Brunswick St approaching Ann St, cross Ann St, walk the length of the mall, cross Wickham St then put up with the stop 211/212 problem, and then get a bus to RBH.  That's not nearly as attractive as the single seat journey route I am advocating.  Also, improving frequency on the Valley-RBH sector is a plus too.

[#Metro]

No.  It's OK heading towards New Farm, as you can use the 370/375/379 (334/335/346/353 won't do) to Warner St and then the 19x to New Farm, but its not so good towards RBH.  You have to get off in Brunswick St approaching Ann St, cross Ann St, walk the length of the mall, cross Wickham St then put up with the stop 211/212 problem, and then get a bus to RBH.  That's not nearly as attractive as the single seat journey route I am advocating.  Also, improving frequency on the Valley-RBH sector is a plus too.

Route 375 has close to BUZ frequency, it goes into the Valley, turns left into Brunswick Street, stops directly outside Fortitude Valley rail (where a lot of people get on, I might add) and then continues along Bowen Bridge Road into a ramp and then up into the new RBWH Busway station.

I guess that if you want to go to New Farm from RBWH, you could catch route 393, but that only serves the northern parts of New Farm.
I guess it is harder for people in New Farm who want to go to RBWH, there is a walk across the mall to bus stop where route 375 departs.
Its not legible as I would like, though that could be easily solved by BUZzing the 375.

I have to admit, I wouldn't support the idea of another bus route into New Farm from RBWH.
BUZ 199 already runs every 5 mins in peak, and put 195 and 196/197 on top of that, you can see that it is very busy and frequent as it is.
There really is not much more to be gained by boosting frequency even further- instead the vehicle size should expand to arctic or something bigger.

A separate route means more buses down Brunswick St, more bus-km etc etc on an already frequent route, just so some buses like 199 can use the Ivory St tunnel on a permanent basis. I don't know. It's not possible to cater to every trip using direct, no-transfer services and I don't think we should attempt to do it. It complicates the network and adds more route km for little gain IMHO.

[somebody]

Its not legible as I would like, though that could be easily solved by BUZzing the 375.

I have to admit, I wouldn't support the idea of another bus route into New Farm from RBWH.

Well, you just explained yourself why it isn't solved by BUZing the 375.

[#Metro]

Well, you just explained yourself why it isn't solved by BUZing the 375.

Disagree.

I guess that if you want to go to New Farm from RBWH, you could catch route 393, but that only serves the northern parts of New Farm.
I guess it is harder for people in New Farm who want to go to RBWH, there is a walk across the mall to bus stop where route 375 departs.
Its not legible as I would like, though that could be easily solved by BUZzing the 375.

A person living in New Farm, and not within the reach of 393 would catch 199 or 196 and get off and walk to the mall (and malls are good for walking in!)
and then go to the BUZ 375 bus stop. This is what the TL journey planner comes up with.

BUZification of 375 does the job IMHO, people will walk further to a more frequent route, and when it is a BUZ.

And exactly how would this proposed New Farm-RBWH route exit New Farm and go to RBWH? I don't think it is necessary to have
yet another bus route down Brunswick st which is already frequent. Perhaps there is a way to solve the 211/212 problem without
commissioning another, separate, bus route over what is already a frequent corridor.

[somebody]

I don't think the 393 touches New Farm, BTW.  Although I can see that the the 393 is a moderately attractive option for someone living near the Tenerriffe Ferry wharf.

And exactly how would this proposed New Farm-RBWH route exit New Farm and go to RBWH? I don't think it is necessary to have
yet another bus route down Brunswick st which is already frequent. Perhaps there is a way to solve the 211/212 problem without
commissioning another, separate, bus route over what is already a frequent corridor.

I thought I'd already explained that.

AM:
Tenerriffe ferry wharf-Vernon Tce, becomes Macquarie St, continues into Merthyr Rd, right Brunswick St, left Ann St, right Gipps St, right Wickham St, left Brunswick St, serve stop 211, continue to RBH.

PM:
leave southbound platform RBH, take exit to Bowen Bridge Rd heading south, becomes Brunswick St, left into Wickham St, right into Warner St, right into Ann St, left into Brunswick St, continue as per 199.

I see a 10 minute frequency in peak.  Although that would have to be checked.

[#Metro]

Sorry, but I think we have to agree to disagree here.
Another route on top of 199 just so people can go to RBWH on a corridor that has excellent frequency already, I really disagree with.
Just walk across the mall. I think the resources would be better used elsewhere.

It would be really helpful to have a bus station located somewhere in Fortitude Valley, but I also doubt that will ever happen either.

[ButFli]

Personally I think a Brunswick St Bus Station under the Brunswick St mall would go down a treat. Don't ask me about unimportant details like where the buses would enter and exit and what routes it could serve. I haven't really given it much thought. 

[somebody]

Personally I think a Brunswick St Bus Station under the Brunswick St mall would go down a treat. Don't ask me about unimportant details like where the buses would enter and exit and what routes it could serve. I haven't really given it much thought. 

Or how much such a thing would cost, and what the benefit would be!

Sorry, but I think we have to agree to disagree here.

I really don't know why you are so negative about my (IMNSHO) quite clever idea to improve cross town links to what is an important destination with apparently poor parking options.  And also reduce the milk run nature of the busiest route in the city by sending all the peak 199s via Ivory St.

Even if the 375 was a BUZ, BUZ doesn't guarantee 10 minute service counter peak in all cases, but even if 10 minute frequency is provided, that is still a mediocre frequency heading from the Valley to an important destination like RBH.  And 15 minute frequency to Milton in the AM peak is just completely unacceptable IMO.

[#Metro]

Or how much such a thing would cost, and what the benefit would be!

A bus station integrated with FV would take nightlink buses off the street.
It would also allow many, if not all, buses to be taken off the surface where there is a lot
of congestion. It would be like the northside integrated version of Roma Street busway + Roma Street rail

But as I said, money and political will are both scarce, something like this cannot be done quickly
or cheaply, no matter how high the benefit, so I don't really see it happening any time soon.

I really don't know why you are so negative about my (IMNSHO) quite clever idea to improve cross town links to what is an important destination with apparently poor parking options.  And also reduce the milk run nature of the busiest route in the city by sending all the peak 199s via Ivory St.

Even if the 375 was a BUZ, BUZ doesn't guarantee 10 minute service counter peak in all cases, but even if 10 minute frequency is provided, that is still a mediocre frequency heading from the Valley to an important destination like RBH.  And 15 minute frequency to Milton in the AM peak is just completely unacceptable IMO.

Because it misses Fortitude Valley. Speed is one thing, connectivity is another.
I'm not convinced that a separate bus route is a good use of resources when people can use their legs and walk.
It is not that far. AIUI there already is a 12 minute counter peak 375 service in the am peak.

[somebody]

Because it misses Fortitude Valley.

But under my second proposal FV-New Farm is perfectly adequately covered.  It is a waste of bus's and pax's time to run to the city via Warner St & Ann St, especially in peak where there is likely enough demand to have a separate route into/from the Valley.

But you have said you would rather agree to disagree.

From the other thread:

Personally I think the system they have now in peak where every second 199 goes Ivory St is a scam. So many confused passengers. I'm not exactly sure how this can be avoided, I think the solution has something to do with using a different number for Ivory St.

The confusing bits of the current system is one of the reasons I am so strongly in favour of a full time Ivory St route.  With the peak hour, it would be possible to have a different number for the via Ivory St services, I suppose, if the via Valley services still stick with the current 10 minute frequency and that would be an improvement.  The different number would also allow it to run non stop from Merthyr/Brunswick to the tunnel.  But what are you going to do with the evening 199s which go through Ivory St?  There would still be confusion with them.

And as I said above, it is a waste of bus-km to run via Valley if there would be demand for a separate route.

[#Metro]

But under my second proposal FV-New Farm is perfectly adequately covered.  It is a waste of bus's and pax's time to run to the city via Warner St & Ann St, especially in peak where there is likely enough demand to have a separate route into/from the Valley.

A separate route to RBWH is not required IMHO. I can't support that.
If you think there is wide support for that, make a thread, state your case and do a poll on it.

An express route via Ivory St could be formed out of 195 and a BUZ 196.
That would solve that problem without touching BUZ 199. BUZ 199 is the
route of choice when bus users want to go into the Valley because it is so legible.

And as I said above, it is a waste of bus-km to run via Valley if there would be demand for a separate route.

I don't agree that it is a waste. Route 195/BUZ 196 takes care of the problem above.

[somebody]

A separate route to RBWH is not required IMHO. I can't support that.
If you think there is wide support for that, make a thread, state your case and do a poll on it.

I think there could be some poll fatigue.  I might give it a week or two.

I really think it would be a real missed opportunity to go somewhere if you just terminated in the Valley.  RBH isn't far and is a good trip generator.

It's a no brainer in peak hour, IMO . Main problem is that it still doesn't do anything about the 196/197 routes, but that's not a reason not to do it.

[#Metro]

Would an acceptable compromise be extending Valley terminators such as route 203/204 to turn left into Brunswick street and continue up Bowen Bridge road to RBWH and the turnaround there?

It would serve the valley and connect the valley to RBWH.

[somebody]

Would an acceptable compromise be extending Valley terminators such as route 203/204 to turn left into Brunswick street and continue up Bowen Bridge road to RBWH and the turnaround there?

It would serve the valley and connect the valley to RBWH.

I'd think you'd get far lower through pax from doing that than my New Farm idea.  Most of these pax could easily change at the Cultural Centre for a Northern Busway service.  Also, a change is much more annoying in a 5km trip than in a 10-15km one.

You'd also still have the problem of deviating city-New Farm pax via Valley in peak hour.

[somebody]

Does the 196 becoming a BUZ change people's opinions here?

[dwb]

Perhaps, but what was that other RBH alternative?

[somebody]

Does the 196 becoming a BUZ change people's opinions here?

New poll here: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5828.0