New Brisbane West bus system proposal

[Gazza]

Just one other thing i noticed, but I reckon some of the routes could be cleaned up a bit , on the 415/470, why does it do this "3 sides of a box" thing along Waverley Rd, Taringa Pde and Goldsborough Rd...Why not just keep it right on Hillsdon Rd?

Theres a few examples like that in the proposal, where the route doglegs for no good reason. The way the 414 along Oxford Tce goes around onto Westersham St would be another example...

I'm gradually going through this. One thought I had, but why does the 417 need to go all the way to the city? That is one route where there is no reasonable argument not to just truncate it at Indooroopilly station (Or perhaps even just terminate it up at the Shopping center instead, so it serves a useful local function), and recycle the route km so it meets every train that people can change onto.

[somebody]

Just one other thing i noticed, but I reckon some of the routes could be cleaned up a bit , on the 415/470, why does it do this "3 sides of a box" thing along Waverley Rd, Taringa Pde and Goldsborough Rd...Why not just keep it right on Hillsdon Rd?

Those that care about a faster journey could walk from Hillsdon Rd to the Taringa express stop on Moggill Rd.

Theres a few examples like that in the proposal, where the route doglegs for no good reason. The way the 414 along Oxford Tce goes around onto Westersham St would be another example...

414 I am adopting the current route without change.  I thought that as I was creating the map also.  Perhaps there is a reason for this, but perhaps not.  My best suggestion would be that Oxford Tce could be too narrow for buses.  I'd rather not distract from the overall positives of my plan with unimportant routes like the 414.  You would probably say some of the same things about the 417 also.

[Gazza]

rather not distract from the overall positives of my plan with unimportant routes like the 414.  You would probably say some of the same things about the 417 also.

True, but if the whole network is being overhauled, then all the examples of "legacy" bad practice of the existing routes should be gotten rid of once and for all.

And why shouldn't the 417 be changed? Would there not be benefits in doing what I propose? Its currently a poor hourly service that could be turned into a useful 15 minute service, whilst avoiding Congestion Drive and the CBD, at no higher running costs.

Those that care about a faster journey could walk from Hillsdon Rd to the Taringa express stop on Moggill Rd.

Avoiding the question though. What reason is there in making routes deliberately circuitous?

Those that care about a faster journey

In other words, the 90% of people who don't take public transport, that drive for "a faster journey" that we need to start attracting at least a portion of.
Forgive me for sounding harsh, but is TL going to go on only serving grannies forever, or are we going to provide a service that more people will use?

My best suggestion would be that Oxford Tce could be too narrow for buses.

Will concede this one, its got one of those things where the road splits in two due to it running along a hillside.

[somebody]

If you think there is a way of changing the 417 such that it could get much more patronage, feel free to post it.

As for the reason for making the 415/470 service Taringa Pde, it is to reduce walk times for people on Taringa Pde and over the other side of the Western Freeway.  I suppose less convenient for those heading to/from Indooroopilly shops.

[somebody]

Those that care about a faster journey

In other words, the 90% of people who don't take public transport, that drive for "a faster journey" that we need to start attracting at least a portion of.
Forgive me for sounding harsh, but is TL going to go on only serving grannies forever, or are we going to provide a service that more people will use?

Rather than trying to pick fault with what I have suggested, why don't you suggest ways to improve it, or come up with your own proposal!!

I will allow that you did suggest just sticking to Hillsdon Rd, but there may well be grannies on Taringa Pde, your suggestion would be that Translink should turn their back on them?  I don't see much advantage to the non-grannies in that, and it would only be when heading toward Indooroopilly where the bus is relatively empty rather than going the other way.

[Gazza]

If you think there is a way of changing the 417 such that it could get much more patronage, feel free to post it.

I did, but in detail.

From Long Pocket, the route should just go along Meiers Rd, then Harts Rd, then Lambert Rd, then Clarence Rd, then Westminster Rd, then Station Rd to terminate at Indooroopilly Shopping center. It is currently 1 bph on weekdays, this would be increased to 4 bph, with a timed transfer at Indooroopilly for Inbound trains. This would be quite reliable to achieve in this area.
They would get much more patronage by the simple fact the higher frequency would be more attractive than the "rotten apple" hourly service at present.

The rest of the existing route towards the city is only ever about 400m away from the rail line, so pax in the area previously served by the 417 should be using the rail network. People in the eastern part of Taringa near to this route should use your 411 upgrade instead.  The section along Coro Drive is of course, not needed.

[somebody]

Ok, but those comments about the 417 were added with an edit which occurred after I read the post!

What you suggest may be a possibility, but the corner of Swann Rd & Westerham St is more than 600m from Taringa Train Station as the crow flies (significantly longer walking) and also more than 400m from Gailey Rd.  So there are some significant losers from your proposal.  You could use the red route and then the 412 but that would mean likely a double change or a trip around via UQ to reach the CBD.

[#Metro]

Just one other thing i noticed, but I reckon some of the routes could be cleaned up a bit , on the 415/470, why does it do this "3 sides of a box" thing along Waverley Rd, Taringa Pde and Goldsborough Rd...Why not just keep it right on Hillsdon Rd?

Theres a few examples like that in the proposal, where the route doglegs for no good reason. The way the 414 along Oxford Tce goes around onto Westersham St would be another example...

I'm gradually going through this. One thought I had, but why does the 417 need to go all the way to the city? That is one route where there is no reasonable argument not to just truncate it at Indooroopilly station (Or perhaps even just terminate it up at the Shopping center instead, so it serves a useful local function), and recycle the route km so it meets every train that people can change onto.

100% agree with you Gazza! 

From Long Pocket, the route should just go along Meiers Rd, then Harts Rd, then Lambert Rd, then Clarence Rd, then Westminster Rd, then Station Rd to terminate at Indooroopilly Shopping center. It is currently 1 bph on weekdays, this would be increased to 4 bph, with a timed transfer at Indooroopilly for Inbound trains. This would be quite reliable to achieve in this area.
They would get much more patronage by the simple fact the higher frequency would be more attractive than the "rotten apple" hourly service at present

[Gazza]

, but the corner of Swann Rd & Westerham St is more than 600m from Taringa Train Station as the crow flies (significantly longer walking) and also more than 400m from Gailey Rd.  So there are some significant losers from your proposal.  You could use the red route and then the 412 but that would mean likely a double change or a trip around via UQ to reach the CBD.

Well, a station is said to have an 800m walk-up radius. I did indeed consider that particular area losing the 417, but I thought rail would cover it. Besides, the 417 has quite short operating hours compared to other routes, and very poor frequency on Sundays, so I think most people in that area you are talking about would use the other alternatives already.

With respect to walking distances, IMO people should be arranging themselves at stops on their own time, not on the systems. I think it is acceptable to make people walk a tad further if it means.

-The service is more legible because it stays on the one street, runs directly, and makes less turns.
-It is faster, because of the above factors.

Having more of a look, the 468 is another "legacy" route that should be fixed. It is in fact my local bus route. Circuitous and does frustrating double backs, plus it only meets a fraction of trains that serve Oxley...I used it for a spell, but gave up on it. IMO it could be improved if it just ran direct along Seventeen Mile Rocks Rd without deviating. 'Im thinking Sinnamon Park could have its own route, with termini at Darra sation and Mt Ommmaney center respectively.  This anchors the route well, since it has trip generators and connections at both ends.

[#Metro]

With respect to walking distances, IMO people should be arranging themselves at stops on their own time, not on the systems. I think it is acceptable to make people walk a tad further if it means.

-The service is more legible because it stays on the one street, runs directly, and makes less turns.
-It is faster, because of the above factors.

People will walk further if the route is frequent and high quality. Expect complaints when any changes to the status quo is done though, it is normal to have complaints when anything changes. I haven't looked deeply into the proposal...

[Golliwog]

To be honest, I'm not a fan of the GCL routes. IMO, they should just be split into a number of seperate routes that cover the same area. I've never used it, but I would find it annoying that some runs terminate part way round the loop as it has no set start and end stops. Same as the 4 minute dwells at the bigger interchanges. I assume these are to allow for driver changes but I would prefer a route that pulled in, did its thing and left again. Sure I might have to interchange to go from one leg to another, but thats the point of an interchange stop.

[Gazza]

^That idea has some merit. Ideally you'd put the 'breaks' in the route at major interchanges where most people would get off to transfer to radial routes. Its not as if the average person (Eg not bus foamers) would need to ride more than a quarter of the loop anyway, since its role is to act as an inter-connector.

[#Metro]

Should the GCL be shattered into quarters then?

[ozbob]

Should the GCL be shattered into quarters then?

Not yet, maybe in 2031 ...

Talking of the GCL, daughter number two boarded the 598 at Mt Cootha to Toowong yesterday.  Very handy bus according to her ...  pity it doesn't run on Sundays!

[somebody]

Only times the GCL terminates at points in the loops is when it stops running, unless I'm mistaken.

, but the corner of Swann Rd & Westerham St is more than 600m from Taringa Train Station as the crow flies (significantly longer walking) and also more than 400m from Gailey Rd.  So there are some significant losers from your proposal.  You could use the red route and then the 412 but that would mean likely a double change or a trip around via UQ to reach the CBD.

Well, a station is said to have an 800m walk-up radius. I did indeed consider that particular area losing the 417, but I thought rail would cover it. Besides, the 417 has quite short operating hours compared to other routes, and very poor frequency on Sundays, so I think most people in that area you are talking about would use the other alternatives already.

You did say that the Indooroopilly-city bit of the existing 417 isn't more than about 400m from a train station (neat trick when train stations are more than 800m apart BTW).

But even by your revised criteria, you are leaving Turner St unserviced.

Few people on Harts Rd/Meiers Rd use PT, except for a few remaining workers at the Sciences Centre who are soon to leave and the odd person that works at the golf course.  If anyone still works on the CSIRO site, then they are soon to leave.  Perhaps with the redevelopment of the sites and an upgraded service this may increase.  I don't see an upgraded 417 as a priority.  And messing with it provokes opposition for what benefit?  With the 414, I don't have any info on it, so I prefer not to mess with it.

[Gazza]

Ok, lets illustrate it.
http://img24.imageshack.us/i/417comparison.jpg/

Yellow...Rail Walk up Catchments. A rail station has an 800m radial catchment.

Purple...417 Catchement. Buses have a 400m radial catchment.

Blue...411 BUZ, also 400m.

When you take the 417 away, there is next to no difference in coverage. Turner street pax can either.
-Walk to Indooroopilly or Taringa stations
-if the want to walk less, walk about 300m down to Lambert Rd, and take 432 into Indooroopilly station.

I see absolutely no reason why money needs to be wasted running a crap low frequency bus service that snakes in between better services, especially if the only advantage in keeping it is serving one uniqe area
It might not be a high priority, but why not start doing best practice everywhere. You've gotta start somewhere.....Obviously overhauling the bus routes of an entire part of the city is a big change, poles need new timetables, runnign sheets would be changed etc. So if this was being done already then it would be no problem to just change this along with it right?

Few people on Harts Rd/Meiers Rd use PT,

Because the service level sucks, so I don't blame them.

[somebody]

Few people on Harts Rd/Meiers Rd use PT,

Because the service level sucks, so I don't blame them.

You could have a bus running every 5 minutes and not having to go to Indooroopilly station but running straight up Indooroopilly Rd & Gailey Rd and also with a different service to Indooroopilly shops and they wouldn't use it, I'm pretty sure.  Property values are very high along that stretch of land.

I'm not really disagreeing with you, but 800m is actual walk distance rather than as the crow flies isn't it?

I'm still not convinced this is a priority.  I'm also concerned about my suggestion for messing with the 435 for similar reasons, and I think that maybe that should be removed.  And I don't want to advance a plan for removing the 414/415 from Taringa Pde for basically the same reasons.

[somebody]

With the Sinnamon Park service, the 103 provides this hourly until about 5:30pm weekdays.  I suppose you could improve operating hours and frequency on this route, but then you have the 468 running even more empty than it currently is.  Actually, the 467 does run along 17mile Rocks Rd, but it only runs in peak, and not over the river.  Making this service full time with increased 103s is an option.

[mufreight]

@tramtrain

UQ may reconsider, but running buses through its campus will degrade it.

UQ currently has in the order of 5-6000 car spaces on campus with plans in their masterplan for I think upto 8000 car spaces (or maybe even more).

Perhaps the bean counters at the University should consider how much the provision of a further 2000 car parking spaces will degrade the university, they will require more surface area than a full surface road extension, a large portion of the road extension could be tunnel.

If a surface road were to be used as a busway extension, it would:
a) (slightly) reduce carparking on campus (ie you'd remove it from road sides)
b) reduce carparking demand due to more alternatives and
c) improve services for students and the general community.

A two lane road for buses (and/or still used by UQ staff/students/servicing) would not be the end of the world for UQ. It would be less busy that the existing roads on campus.  For example if the 109 was extended to Toowong Centre/ Indooroopilly shopping centre at the current service level, that would only result in 112 buses over the course of 14.5hrs a day... or roughly one quiet natural gas bus every 7min 46secs.

Assuming that the level of service vastly improved, say three fold, that would still be less than one bus every 2mins (each direction), hardly the end of the world.

Let's take this a bit further and assume that the 109 service was doubled in frequency and extended through UQ... there would be 224 buses each direction a day. Assuming that over the day an average of half of the extra seats on a doubling of services to UQ of the 109 are utilised and that half of those are by UQ students who previously drove and the other half by through travellers (ie 1/4 of new seats taken up by UQ students), then...
1200 UQ cars not on campus... but replaced instead by 448 buses per day (ie both directions) or still only 1 bus every 1min 56 secs and hardly the end of the world for UQ.
Keeping this bus route on service through campus would likely save building roughly 800m of tunnel... how much would that save the tax payer... even if the Govt gave $200mil to UQ as a sweetener. Plus, UQ would be able to remove 1200 spaces of surface carparking from their beautiful campus and/or not have to lay out the cash to pay for the new multilevel car parks in their masterplan.

Both UQ and the Govt could redirect their funding to more important things.

The university makes noise about the environment and the effects of greenhouse emissions, one would think that they would be more than interested in taking steps that would make a significant contribution to lowering emission levels by the provision of low emission public transport that would encourage student public transport use and save the university the costs of constructing more car parks and the loss of more surface area from the university for unproductive car parks.

[somebody]

I would agree with the sentiment that simply increasing frequency on the 468 could be insufficent.  I'll have a think about it and see if something better can be done.

This isn't a criticism obviously since I agree with it, but why the change of heart in terms of some passengers having to transfer between services?

To answer this better, I've never been completely opposed to transfers, but I strenuously object to the concept that the 444 is the only route which is allowed to continue to run between Indooroopilly and the CBD.  I also object to increasing frequency on the 444 as there are many, many other routes in the west which need it *MUCH* more.

[Gazza]

^I think it depends on what you can get out of the route km's. If say its a poor frequency hourly service through to the CBD and you can either improve it by.

-Making it half hourly to the CBD

-Cutting it back to somewhere like Indro and have them transfer, but get more runs out of it (Every 15 minutes minimum) due to avoiding the long/congested run along Moggil Rd and Coro Drive then which would you pick?

For me, its the latter, because its closer to TUAG, and it is possible to time the transfers, and it does become a useful service for people only going as far as Indro (since it is a big trip generator itself, major centre under the regional plan yada yada yada.)

I'd just like to say that if there are other routes in the west that would be successful as a BUZ through to the CBD in their own right then by all means BUZ them (Stats?  :conf )
Absolutely no objection to doing this.

BUZ(s) to Mt Ommaney is an obvious one.



Furthermore, if we were to go down the track of having a trunk and feeder system, but the feeders were sufficiently loaded in peak hour to justify running on to the CBD from Indro, then that's fine too...just chuck an extra letter on the bus number to represent these services. (I'm aware that peak hour variants exist on some routes)

I can see where you are coming from in your second point, but my position has always been this.
-Run feeders only as far as Indro.
-Put the 444 under pressure due to the volume of transfers, so its always well loaded and running at a profit, or close to it.
-Run as many 444s as needed to meet this demand.

I also object to increasing frequency on the 444 as there are many, many other routes in the west which need it *MUCH* more.

Now, if the 444 is having extra buses added to meet demand then I don't see this as stealing resources away from other needy routes in the west. It's no different to the 199 getting 5 min frequency at some hours of the day because that's what it takes.

But if these extra 444s were being added because "they feel like it" (Eg route 88) and these extra 444 services were heavily subsidised/making a large loss then you would have a fair point, because yes, money is being spent away from where it would make a difference.

So to conclude, for me the goal is making sure 15 minute frequencies are available as widely as possible, even if it means a transfer.
You could spend money going from hourly to half hourly, and brag that you've doubled the frequency.....but it's still not good enough to be useful.

If half hourly services are unacceptable on the rail network, then they  aren't acceptable on buses either.

[somebody]

Now, if the 444 is having extra buses added to meet demand then I don't see this as stealing resources away from other needy routes in the west. It's no different to the 199 getting 5 min frequency at some hours of the day because that's what it takes.

If the demand isn't for people beyond Indooroopilly or even Kenmore, then I would say that it is artificially created demand

[Gazza]

What do you mean when you say "artificially created demand"?

[somebody]

What do you mean when you say "artificially created demand"?

What I mean is by funneling people who would otherwise be using another 4xx route onto the 444 is artificial demand for the 444.

[#Metro]

-Cutting it back to somewhere like Indro and have them transfer, but get more runs out of it (Every 15 minutes minimum) due to avoiding the long/congested run along Moggil Rd and Coro Drive then which would you pick?

For me, its the latter, because its closer to TUAG, and it is possible to time the transfers, and it does become a useful service for people only going as far as Indro (since it is a big trip generator itself, major centre under the regional plan yada yada yada.)

100% agree. This is the message I am trying to get across: you can have a frequent local service + transfer or you can have a direct service + low frequency.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, we can't afford to BUZ everything.

As for "artificial demand", I don't understand what the significance of this is.

[Gazza]

What do you mean when you say "artificially created demand"?

What I mean is by funneling people who would otherwise be using another 4xx route onto the 444 is artificial demand for the 444.

If we were leaving the frequency of other 4xx routes as they are (low), and simply cutting them short and imposing a transfer onto the 444 for the fun of it (rather than letting them stay on their own bus), then yes it would be artificial demand on the 444 since you wouldn't be moving any more people.

But if we improve the frequency of the feeders, and more journeys are being done as a whole on the system because the improvements attract more riders on the feeders, then that's induced demand rather than artificial demand.

And induced demand is obliviously a good thing, since we're trying to get more people to use PT.

[somebody]

What do you mean when you say "artificially created demand"?

What I mean is by funneling people who would otherwise be using another 4xx route onto the 444 is artificial demand for the 444.

If we were leaving the frequency of other 4xx routes as they are (low), and simply cutting them short and imposing a transfer onto the 444 for the fun of it (rather than letting them stay on their own bus), then yes it would be artificial demand on the 444 since you wouldn't be moving any more people.

But if we improve the frequency of the feeders, and more journeys are being done as a whole on the system because the improvements attract more riders on the feeders, then that's induced demand rather than artificial demand.

And induced demand is obliviously a good thing, since we're trying to get more people to use PT.

In doing that though you would be having probably an 8/hour frequency on the 444 with at best a 4/hour frequency on the feeder routes.  So the other routes have a lower frequency and also have to live with interchange.  Which wouldn't be fair, would it now?

[Gazza]

Could an option be to do a short working of the 444 that only goes as far as say the Kenmore Park and Ride? so 8/h to there, with 1 out of 2 continuing to Moggil? This is because there wouldn't be any other feeders entering in beyond that point, so the demand drops off at that point.

Which wouldn't be fair, would it now?

Look at it in absolute terms though, everone in the area gets 4/h minimum, which is great. This is the primary goal IMO.
Who cares if the trunk has to have higher frequency than the feeders? That's the basic model of a trunk and feeder system isn't it?

To sum up:
-The aim of the frequency increase on feeders is to induce demand.
-The aim of the frequency increase of the 444/Trunk Route is to cater to this demand.

[somebody]

Could an option be to do a short working of the 444 that only goes as far as say the Kenmore Park and Ride? so 8/h to there

That would still be inferior to the possibility of having 4/hour 444 + 4/hour 430 from the same CBD stop with the same route to Kenmore.  Well, ignoring that the 430 doesn't quite reach the Park 'n' Ride.  I don't think that was the point.

[Gazza]

^Good idea actually to do it that way.

[somebody]

^Good idea actually to do it that way.

Thank you.

That is what I have been trying to get across for a while.

[somebody]

Re: Sinnamon Park + Seventeen Mile Rocks service.

I propose a BUZ 103, with the 468 to stick to Seventeen Mile Rocks Rd.  An alternative would be to have the 468 run to Sinnamon Rd for interchange with the red and green routes.

[Gazza]

Thank you.

That is what I have been trying to get across for a while.

One thing though, if there were these two high frequency routes serving this area, then IMO that should be the end of any other routes in  the "FigKenBrookChapel-ish" area running through to the CBD (Except perhaps for peak hour services that justify it with high loading prior to reaching the interchange point.)

I propose a BUZ 103, with the 468 to stick to Seventeen Mile Rocks Rd.  An alternative would be to have the 468 run to Sinnamon Rd for interchange with the red and green routes.

Agreed. Does everything have to be a full blown "BUZ" though....How well do BUZes do beyond around 9:30-10:00 pm for instance?

On the 468 that loop into the Coles carpark needs to be gotten rid of...It saves the whole of 20m walking compared to street stops, and it slows things down.
Actually, that whole end of the route at Jindalee i need to get my head around...The road layout is so confusing, and it would be a passenger unfriendly interchange point.

[somebody]

Re: BUZ

I actually think this is the minimum standard to make PT attractive.  Who would use a service which only comes every half an hour?  Only those with no alternative.

If the 444/425 or 444/430 are both BUZed and co-ordinate, then yes I can agree that it may be sufficient for CBD trips, but subject to the capacity.  I tend to think that the 425 BUZ in the OP would eventually stimulate enough patronage to reduce capacity for interchange to other buses.  A bus/rail interchange is one possibility, but it would be interesting to see how many interchange from the "red" route to the train at Indooroopilly.

[somebody]

Thinking some more about this, I'm not really comfortable with the through running of the 475/476.  Who would go to PA Hospital via the Storey Bridge?  A Valley-PA Hospital connection does make sense though.

[#Metro]

Through running from where?

Many people use this service to travel from the CBD and Fortitude Valley to Kangaroo Point and Woolloongabba.

Coming to think of it: what is the purpose of route 476. It only runs about three services per day!

[somebody]

Through running from where?

Many people use this service to travel from the CBD and Fortitude Valley to Kangaroo Point and Woolloongabba.

Coming to think of it: what is the purpose of route 476. It only runs about three services per day!

Rainworth, but that's not the point.  The Valley-PAH service has a point, but the City-Valley bit is somewhat pointless.

[Gazza]

With the 444, why cant it go Roma St, KGS, and then Terminate at QSBS?

[Golliwog]

Well, IMO theres little point in stopping at both KGS and QSBS. They're next to each other. Plus not all stops at QSBS are wheelchair friendly. If you were going to go to QSBS I would think you would run across the Go Between bridge, stop at CC and then end at QSBS, but that removes the interchange with the trains at Roma St.

[Gazza]

So are they separate stations or aren't they?