TransLink: New Farm changes - information session

[dwb]

195  used to service Jane street until about 2006 I think. I think the New Farm leg has more people and thus the 195 was cut from Jane St, West End. I think with the 199 and CityGlider, or even 192, just add more peak hour services to that.

Ahh yes I remember that now... they were so infrequent and I never knew where they went so I never got one!

[dwb]

dwb, I'm having trouble following your map.  One colour is covering others.  Although I think the 199 REALLY needs to avoid the Valley.

If you use the link http://goo.gl/maps/E51c[/b]]http://goo.gl/maps/E51c you get a full view, that you can manipulate etc.

The 199 MUST serve the Valley. That is the point. It serves the centres of West End, City, Valley, Merthyr and Teneriffe. Many many people get the route for the fact that it goes through the valley. I don't believe this route should be bypassed. If you note however I've agreed with you that the new 196 and my proposed 195 both get bypassed as they serve more of a commuter peak function.

[#Metro]

199 should serve the valley. I agree with dwb, however I can see the value in your feeder service from the Valley station. FV is frequent and avoids Adelaide st congestion.

On Wednesday I went to a function at a restaurant on Wickham street (I got a taxi there too as I needed to be on time, screw the bus).
Lots of buses every few seconds going into the Valley. People could catch any of these routes-- but the routes that had people on them were 199/196/CityGlider and the 300 series. Everything else was carrying air. So you would have this completely packed 300 series or 199 bus followed by three air carriers... ridiculous!

I am open to Somebody's Yeronga area proposals- i.e. sending 105 up Annerly road, increased frequency, removal of 196 from Fairfield.

[dwb]

I am open to Somebody's Yeronga area proposals- i.e. sending 105 up Annerly road, increased frequency, removal of 196 from Fairfield.

Sorry, WHAT??

If you BUZ the 196 but take it out of Fairfield, and you've killed the 197 then what do you get in Fairfield... esp if you want to travel to West End?

The 196/7 is popular and should not be changed at the West End-Fairfield end from my perspective.

At the other end, I propose that it turns right at the lights off Brunswick St on to Barker St (as it does now), continues on to Moray St, crosses Merthyr still on Moray, then turns right into Sydney St, then left into Oxlade Drive as in the map below. I'd be interested in people's specific feedback about this component as it is different to existing, existing proposed, tramtrain and somebody proposed. As can be seen below it travels via Ivory St tunnel.


http://goo.gl/maps/ygI9

[dwb]

And the 195?


http://goo.gl/maps/dy4s

[#Metro]

Sorry, WHAT??

If you BUZ the 196 but take it out of Fairfield, and you've killed the 197 then what do you get in Fairfield... esp if you want to travel to West End?

The 196/7 is popular and should not be changed at the West End-Fairfield end from my perspective.

We can't just focus on "losers". There are many unseen losers, and at the moment they are in cars because of welfare routing, slow speeds. And then there are the huge subsidies required to prop up services because of low patronage. Why should I pay for poor services?
We can't just focus on direct trip everywhere either.

When Somebody said "I want 196 to go to UQ" I thought he meant make 196 come out of Fairfield and then turn left into UQ Lakes, which I though was a bit odd! However, my brain finally clicked into gear, and I realised that this was coming off Gladstone Rd into UQ Lakes, which made a lot of sense.

I reckon a person on a bicycle from Fairfield could outrun 196 to the City by using Annerly road simply because it is more direct.
And I agree with Somebody actually... will post in the other thread.

[#Metro]

Dwb, I agree with your 196 routing (green). I think it is great, and I would really support that.  

Your 195 route actually used to be the old 195 route! LOL!!
But the purpose of a peak hour service is to relieve pressure on 199 and 196 (which need services that end in the city during peak hour as there isn't a need for services to go all the way into Fairfield or West End during peak)

So your 195 gets my support too. Small possibility that it could go to the ferry stop at the end of Sydney street, but that is a minor fuss...

[somebody]

The 199 MUST serve the Valley. That is the point

How can you back that one up?

I am open to Somebody's Yeronga area proposals- i.e. sending 105 up Annerly road, increased frequency, removal of 196 from Fairfield.

Sorry, WHAT??

If you BUZ the 196 but take it out of Fairfield, and you've killed the 197 then what do you get in Fairfield... esp if you want to travel to West End?

You get the faster Annerley Rd buses serving Fairfield.  Currently, the 105 bypasses Fairfield Gardens, but this has to change.

The 196 should serve UQ which is a far more important destination than Fairfield Gardens.

There is a limitation in that Highgate Hill can't access Fairfield Gardens as easily, but there is shopping in West End on the 196 route, and you can also use the CBD shopping.  If you absolutely must use Fairfield Gardens (I'm not sure why), you can interchange.

[#Metro]

199 and the valley


199 along with CityGlider are the most legible services to access the Valley, then 196 after that.
I agree with Dwb that 199 should be left alone.

Fairfield Gardens
I agree with Somebody that 105 should take over serving Fairfield (with increased frequency to boot) and go via Annerly road. It's just faster plus you get all the connections at Mater Hill busway station to southside destinations (111), Ipswich road Services and eastside/Carindale services (200 series) plus the connections to West End are maintained (199/CityGlider). This is a large increase in travel speed and huge increase in mobility (menu of potential destinations within say 30 minutes). So in my books, Somebody's proposal is very favorable from this perspective.

Fairfield Gardens is closed due to flooding. Has anyone noticed a drop in pax?

105 does bypass Fairfield Gardens, but the road layout is such that you can't really go into the shopping centre car park without adding a lot of timewaste. People can walk I guess, or some alteration to the road there perhaps?

[dwb]

Is there another thread about the 105?

I too thought about putting the 195 down to Sydney St ferry terminal.

I think that we'd really need to see some data at both ends about customers from Go card to make better informed decisions.

Yes perhaps 196 could go to UQ, however I need to think about this about more.

[#Metro]

The problem with Go Card data is that it only tells you about who catches the service now, it says nothing about who catches the car at the moment because their service
is not up to scratch.

Yeronga area bus routes http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5681.0

[somebody]

199 and the valley


199 along with CityGlider are the most legible services to access the Valley, then 196 after that.
I agree with Dwb that 199 should be left alone.

But that's a TERRIBLE reason.  Just awful.  What you are saying is that the 199 should have a welfare routing because people are too lazy to use an alternate service, when numerous other services are, in fact, provided.

There are numerous other routes heading between the Cultural Centre and the Valley via Adelaide St(124/125/174/175/204, I'm sure quite a few others I'm not thinking of right now).  I think the eastbound CityGlider should be moved from the 19x stops to give a single stop for most of the services to the Valley at Adelaide st approaching Edward St.  And whatever other stops the listed routes serve on Adelaide St.  And 199 via Ivory St.  I really don't know what you are basing your support for the current routing on.

[#Metro]

I don't understand.

If it is so bad, then why is this Brisbane's busiest bus route carrying almost 4 million people per year?
Why is 199 almost full every time it goes through this area?

All the other bus routes you mention carry air into the valley (except for CityGlider and maybe 196).
These other services are totally illegible.
And I know, because I sat in a restaurant on Wednesday night and I saw them all.

[somebody]

All the other buses are empty because of the ridiculous city stop locations.

Besides, having these peopled funnelled onto the 199 is the sort of thing that really irks me about Brisbane's bus system.  The effectiveness of the network overall is run down to bolster the statistics of some "high profile" routes.  It's just wrong.

[#Metro]

Nobody is funnelled onto 199. They would be funneled if the buses terminated in the CBD and only 199/300 series and CityGlider went to Fortitude Valley.

[somebody]

Nobody is funnelled onto 199. They would be funneled if the buses terminated in the CBD and only 199/300 series and CityGlider went to Fortitude Valley.

Incorrect.

In the same way, people who used to use the 393/160/425/430/450/453/454/460 have been funnelled on to high profile routes such as the 66, 111, and 444.  With the exception of the former, this has led to the need for the 88 to waste resources.

[somebody]

Sorry to be harsh, but keeping the xxx the way it currently is is exactly how we have gotten the ridiculous system we have today.  There needs to be a willingness from Brisbanites to accept change.  A lot of changes have been retrograde and not properly communicated, but that is not a problem with change per se.

If you won't accept well justified change in the 199, why should anyone else accept change with their particular route?  Why bother with proposing changes to other routes, such as the 105?

[#Metro]

You want to send 199 down the Ivory Street tunnel or cut into a feeder from RBWH? Is this correct?
I just think that FV needs to be served. Not everybody will walk to Central station because it is inconveniently positioned and who wants to remember that
when you want to go to Fortitude Valley you need to catch any one of 117, 121, 124, 125, 170, 171, 174, 175, 178, 183, 184, 185, 200, 203, 204, 206, 207, 210, 211, 212, 222, 227, 230, 232, 235, 300, 301, 302, 305, 306, 310, 315, 320, 322, 334, 335, 339, 346, 353, 356, 360, 361, 364, 370, 375, 379, 381, 470, 475, 476 when you can just catch CityGlider or 199

In the same way, people who used to use the 393/160/425/430/450/453/454/460 have been funnelled on to high profile routes such as the 66, 111, and 444.  With the exception of the former, this has led to the need for the 88 to waste resources.

Huh? So I still don't see how this is "funnelling". It is no accident that the BUZ services are just more legible. If anything the services carrying air should probably be cut back and make them transfer to the high profile route. That way that line can be strengthened, use larger vehicles, run at very high frequency all day, have lower labour costs per passenger and more services in the evening and so on.

[Gazza]

Sorry to be harsh, but keeping the xxx the way it currently is is exactly how we have gotten the ridiculous system we have today.  There needs to be a willingness from Brisbanites to accept change.  A lot of changes have been retrograde and not properly communicated, but that is not a problem with change per se.

If you won't accept well justified change in the 199, why should anyone else accept change with their particular route?  Why bother with proposing changes to other routes, such as the 105?

Agreed, I thought the whole reason authorities favor buses is because they are cheap and flexible, yet there is reluctance to make use of this flexibility and fix routes
I'm with tramtrain on the 2nd point though, there should be flagship routes at very high frequency, and the lesser routes should be cut back and people interchange.
nothing wrong with this approach, not every route needs to go to the CBD.

[#Metro]

Look at the end of the day, I AM NOT TRANSLINK!! 

By all means if it is an option, it is an option. I just don't think sending 199 via Ivory St is hot.
195 and 196 down Ivory St tunnel; no problem...

[somebody]

You want to send 199 down the Ivory Street tunnel or cut into a feeder from RBWH? Is this correct?

I want to send the 199 down Ivory St AND have a New Farm-RBH route.

I just think that FV needs to be served.

It is, quite well in terms of numbers of buses, but the network design inhibits the effectiveness.  But you always talk about buses feeding rail.  In this case you have the exact opposite situation.  Why should people interchange for rail services even at Indooroopilly if you wouldn't use a rail service between Central and the Valley.  I'm getting quite annoyed with people's intransigence to be honest.  Seems that people only want feeder buses on services that they don't use.  Fair dinkum, if you want feeder buses, you have to be willing to accept interchange, and also using a rail system which may not have stops as close to your destination as may have been the case with the bus system.

The only justification I can see for the numbers of buses which actually do it this way is that there is insufficient layover space in the Wickham Tce bus parking area.

Not everybody will walk to Central station because it is inconveniently positioned and who wants to remember that
when you want to go to Fortitude Valley you need to catch any one of 117, 121, 124, 125, 170, 171, 174, 175, 178, 183, 184, 185, 200, 203, 204, 206, 207, 210, 211, 212, 222, 227, 230, 232, 235, 300, 301, 302, 305, 306, 310, 315, 320, 322, 334, 335, 339, 346, 353, 356, 360, 361, 364, 370, 375, 379, 381, 470, 475, 476 when you can just catch CityGlider or 199

Or maybe you could look at the destination displays.  Some may not be perfect, but I am sure that the 124/125/174/175/204/230/235 show "City-Valley" and pretty sure that the 375 shows "Stafford City via City-Valley".  If you aren't sure that these buses go to the Valley then I can't add anything.  Not sure what the 370/379/300/334 show but maybe it can be improved.

In the same way, people who used to use the 393/160/425/430/450/453/454/460 have been funnelled on to high profile routes such as the 66, 111, and 444.  With the exception of the former, this has led to the need for the 88 to waste resources.

Huh? So I still don't see how this is "funnelling". It is no accident that the BUZ services are just more legible. If anything the services carrying air should probably be cut back and make them transfer to the high profile route. That way that line can be strengthened, use larger vehicles, run at very high frequency all day, have lower labour costs per passenger and more services in the evening and so on.

Case study 1: The 393 was truncated.  Result: congestion on the 333/330/340.  Where is the confusion that there has been funnelling?  You may argue that they didn't intend to do so but I am not so sure.  They are either Machiavellian or incompetent.

Case study 2: The 111 was moved out of QSBS and the 160 wasn't.  Result: 160 now arrives at the Cultural Centre with few passengers.  I don't have official figures to back this up, but perhaps they aren't published because they might embarrass Translink.

It is similar with the Indooroopilly expresses.

I'm with tramtrain on the 2nd point though, there should be flagship routes at very high frequency, and the lesser routes should be cut back and people interchange. nothing wrong with this approach, not every route needs to go to the CBD.

Not 100% sure what you are saying here.  Are you supporting TT's heels in the ground "don't touch any route's I use!"?

[#Metro]

It is, quite well in terms of numbers of buses, but the network design inhibits the effectiveness.  But you always talk about buses feeding rail.  In this case you have the exact opposite situation.  Why should people interchange for rail services even at Indooroopilly if you wouldn't use a rail service between Central and the Valley.  I'm getting quite annoyed with people's intransigence to be honest.  Seems that people only want feeder buses on services that they don't use.  Fair dinkum, if you want feeder buses, you have to be willing to accept interchange, and also using a rail system which may not have stops as close to your destination as may have been the case with the bus system.

Somebody, I don't mind interchange. But you are not proposing to terminate 199 at Fortitude Valley train station are you? It seems you want that PLUS this RBWH route on top of that as well. PLUS you are going to have BUZ 196 on top of that and 195 too. Seems like overkill to me.

There is a big carpark next to and above Central station. Maybe time to demolish that and put in a bus station. If you want interchange, you need to get PROPER FACILITIES for that to minimise walking distances.

Or maybe you could look at the destination displays.  Some may not be perfect, but I am sure that the 124/125/174/175/204/230/235 show "City-Valley" and pretty sure that the 375 shows "Stafford City via City-Valley".  If you aren't sure that these buses go to the Valley then I can't add anything.  Not sure what the 370/379/300/334 show but maybe it can be improved.

Yes but the sheer number of these routes makes it illegible because you have to remember 50 different bus routes and NONE of them are high frequency. I would like to see a diagram with 50 bus stops for 50 routes arranged so that all were next to each other. Is that even possible???

Case study 1: The 393 was truncated.  Result: congestion on the 333/330/340.  Where is the confusion that there has been funnelling?  You may argue that they didn't intend to do so but I am not so sure.  They are either Machiavellian or incompetent.

Case study 2: The 111 was moved out of QSBS and the 160 wasn't.  Result: 160 now arrives at the Cultural Centre with few passengers.  I don't have official figures to back this up, but perhaps they aren't published because they might embarrass Translink.

It is similar with the Indooroopilly expresses.

Didn't they do consultation on this? 393 was cut because no-body caught it. It was supposed to be a flagship high frequency route but it did very badly indeed. So I think now they feed it to the busway. Nothing wrong with that. Why not just ask for more 66 and 333 services? These are "core frequency" routes.

Not 100% sure what you are saying here.  Are you supporting TT's heels in the ground "don't touch any route's I use!"?

Call me back when they have put a train station on Adelaide Street.

NOTICE: I AM NOT TRANSLINK!!!

[#Metro]

Yes but the sheer number of these routes makes it illegible because you have to remember 50 different bus routes and NONE of them are high frequency. I would like to see a diagram with 50 bus stops for 50 routes arranged so that all were next to each other. Is that even possible???

Coming to think of it, you could just resume part of Adelaide Street can put in a busway platform, and bundle the route like they do in Canberra... although you have to question why 50 different buses even need to enter the CBD... on a proper feeder model you would not need 50 routes going to the valley...

[somebody]

Somebody, I don't mind interchange. But you are not proposing to terminate 199 at Fortitude Valley train station are you? It seems you want that PLUS this RBWH route on top of that as well. PLUS you are going to have BUZ 196 on top of that and 195 too. Seems like overkill to me.

No, I'm not proposing truncation of the 199 at FV.  That would still be a milk run combined with a very annoying interchange.  Get rid of milk runs!

I don't see the overkill.  19x is heavily patronised in peak and traffic congestion is also a problem.  Seems a very well justified move.

Yes but the sheer number of these routes makes it illegible because you have to remember 50 different bus routes and NONE of them are high frequency. I would like to see a diagram with 50 bus stops for 50 routes arranged so that all were next to each other. Is that even possible???

You are ignoring my point that you do not need to remember all the route numbers.

Case study 1: The 393 was truncated.  Result: congestion on the 333/330/340.  Where is the confusion that there has been funnelling?  You may argue that they didn't intend to do so but I am not so sure.  They are either Machiavellian or incompetent.

Case study 2: The 111 was moved out of QSBS and the 160 wasn't.  Result: 160 now arrives at the Cultural Centre with few passengers.  I don't have official figures to back this up, but perhaps they aren't published because they might embarrass Translink.

It is similar with the Indooroopilly expresses.

Didn't they do consultation on this? 393 was cut because no-body caught it. It was supposed to be a flagship high frequency route but it did very badly indeed. So I think now they feed it to the busway. Nothing wrong with that. Why not just ask for more 66 and 333 services? These are "core frequency" routes.

This is the mentality which annoys me!

I would be very surprised if they did consultation before truncating the 393.  If they did, they would have asked a question which ensured they got the answer they wanted.  Do you have a link for this one?

Extra 66s suck up cash which could be better used.  Why not just have more 88 style routes while you are at it!  Extra 333s counter peak I can go along with.

EDIT: fix quotes

[#Metro]

You are ignoring my point that you do not need to remember all the route numbers.

I take your point, you can bundle routes to create a line. But isn't this what already happens? And they still carry air do they not?
Why 50 different bus routes needs to do City-Valley is beyond me.

This is the mentality which annoys me!

I would be very surprised if they did consultation before truncating the 393.  If they did, they would have asked a question which ensured they got the answer they wanted.  Do you have a link for this one?

Extra 66s suck up cash which could be better used.  Why not just have more 88 style routes while you are at it!  Extra 333s counter peak I can go along with.

What? What is with the demonisation of TransLink? Seriously. People did not catch it so it got cut. Tough cookies, it didn't have patronage.
Now they have to interchange... No I don't have a link, it was ages ago.

Somebody, do you really think I am a planner at TransLink? Nothing is stopping you from from sending your complaints to TL.
There's even a form on the New Farm bus routes consultation website where you can post feedback.

[Golliwog]

You are ignoring my point that you do not need to remember all the route numbers.

I take your point, you can bundle routes to create a line. But isn't this what already happens? And they still carry air do they not?
Why 50 different bus routes needs to do City-Valley is beyond me.

Because they do, ok? A no, this isn't what happens which is what Somebody is trying to get at. The 199 and City Glider have their own stop (I think they share it with the 196/197?) while all the other ones stop somewhere else on Adelaide St.

I would agree with TT that whats going on is not exactly funneling, but it pretty much is. If the other routes stopped at an adjacent stop, and had a desto that read "City-Valley" or something similar, I would be surprised if people going to the valley wouldn't take one of those instead. As it is, you have the 199 and CG which are both marketed as high frequency "good" routes, so everyone just goes for that stop.

[somebody]

I take your point, you can bundle routes to create a line. But isn't this what already happens? And they still carry air do they not?

It is not what already happens.  A number of people feel that the 19x stop has better frequency to the Valley and so use that.  You are apparently one of those people.

What? What is with the demonisation of TransLink? Seriously. People did not catch it so it got cut. Tough cookies, it didn't have patronage.

I do not believe this is correct.  Are you just making it up?  Besides, it didn't get cut, it got kneecapped, which was the worst possible option.

I call crap on this one!

Somebody, do you really think I am a planner at TransLink? Nothing is stopping you from from sending your complaints to TL.
There's even a form on the New Farm bus routes consultation website where you can post feedback.

No, I don't believe you work for TL.  i didn't know about the form.  I think I will submit something there.

I'm not going to say anything else about Translink today.  Until I calm down.

You are ignoring my point that you do not need to remember all the route numbers.

I take your point, you can bundle routes to create a line. But isn't this what already happens? And they still carry air do they not?
Why 50 different bus routes needs to do City-Valley is beyond me.

Because they do, ok? A no, this isn't what happens which is what Somebody is trying to get at. The 199 and City Glider have their own stop (I think they share it with the 196/197?) while all the other ones stop somewhere else on Adelaide St.

I would agree with TT that whats going on is not exactly funneling, but it pretty much is. If the other routes stopped at an adjacent stop, and had a desto that read "City-Valley" or something similar, I would be surprised if people going to the valley wouldn't take one of those instead. As it is, you have the 199 and CG which are both marketed as high frequency "good" routes, so everyone just goes for that stop.

Thank you.

[#Metro]

It is not what already happens.  A number of people feel that the 19x stop has better frequency to the Valley and so use that.  You are apparently one of those people.

I certainly am, along with the other 4 million trips! If I want to go to the Valley- I get 199, CityGlider or a train. Screw the other low frequency routes.

I do not believe this is correct.  Are you just making it up?  Besides, it didn't get cut, it got kneecapped, which was the worst possible option.

I call crap on this one!

Semantics. TL got out the scissors and chopped off a bit of the route.

[Golliwog]

It is not what already happens.  A number of people feel that the 19x stop has better frequency to the Valley and so use that.  You are apparently one of those people.

I certainly am, along with the other 4 million trips! If I want to go to the Valley- I get 199, CityGlider or a train. Screw the other low frequency routes.

You mean the other individually low frequency routes. If they all serviced the same stop (I think they kind of do, I remember a few years ago when they changed Adelaide St around they were sectioning it, though they did a fairly poor job of signing that) and that stop had a nice big sign saying "Fortitude Valley buses - Here" then the patronage along that section for those routes combined would probably rival the 199. Of course, not overall. Not sure where you've plucked the 4 million trips statistic from, but any published Translink stats are worthless on this point anyway. They only give patronage for the WHOLE route, not for a section of it.

[#Metro]

Ok, so if that's what people want. Do up your own media release!
Don't let me stop you! I just think 199 is good as it is now and that 196 via the Ivory St tunnel is sufficient.

[#Metro]

I have to say I am surprised at the sudden surge in interest in transferring. What happened?

[dwb]

Let's take the 375 for example... it's been my route for most of my life...  back from when it was the 144.

It runs Bardon, Paddington, City, Valley, Stafford.

Many people from both ends catch it just to the City... however many people DO catch it from Bardon or Paddington to the Valley... and lot's of people in the Valley DO catch it to the City... or Bardon or Paddington.

At one stage TL implemented a Valley bypass during peak (much like you're proposing for the 199). I convinced all of my friends to get it to our dinner in the Valley as I knew exactly where it went... or at least I thought I did. We ended up having to walk almost as far as from the city itself thanks to where we ended up.

I don't believe it is practical for all those routes to service the same stop in the city and the same stop in the valley... although if you built a busway station at Cathedral Place or some other place in the Valley then perhaps they could all stop there. Yes I posted that in your open infrastructure forum.

Interestingly you've proposed terminating the 375 at either Roma St or City and forcing interchange with rail previously to get to the valley. That won't work. Transfers don't work when you can practically taste your destination, they are just a major frustration esp as more often than not the wait for the next service is longer than the time it takes to get their on your original service... and often when the service you'd be forced to transfer to is actually full.

I think you need to take a breath and chill out on the 199. Like tramtrain said, it is popular for a reason and that is not your so called "funnelling". It is that it travels THROUGH not around is some weird bypass MAJOR DESTINATIONS in Brisbane that from a land use perspective support transit... including West End, City, and Fortitude Valley.

[dwb]

Further, I like to concentrate my efforts on winnable battles, and I think the 195/6 combo is winnable.

Tramtrain, is this more the 195 you'd propose?

http://goo.gl/maps/PEMx

[somebody]

I have to say I am surprised at the sudden surge in interest in transferring. What happened?

Nothing.  It's always been horses for courses.  Or to put it the way BT does: "Maximise the opportunity to transfer, minimise the need to transfer".

Ok, so if that's what people want. Do up your own media release!
Don't let me stop you! I just think 199 is good as it is now and that 196 via the Ivory St tunnel is sufficient.

I don't think TL would even consider such an improvement.

Semantics. TL got out the scissors and chopped off a bit of the route.

And it may have been their worst ever decision.  There's pretty stiff competition for this one too.

I don't believe it is practical for all those routes to service the same stop in the city and the same stop in the valley... although if you built a busway station at Cathedral Place or some other place in the Valley then perhaps they could all stop there. Yes I posted that in your open infrastructure forum.

I'd suggest that moving the CityGlider to the last stop approaching Edward St on Adelaide St (towards the Valley) is an achievable and practical improvement.  That would put it with the 124/125/172/175/204/230/235, and adjacent to the 300/370/375/379 IIRC.  Then sending the 199 via Ivory St would result in no one having an incentive to wait at the New Farm stop because only the 196 would serve it.  EDIT: Actually, putting the Glider with the 300/301/306/320/321/322 Toombul services would be superior to allow a common stop towards Newstead. /EDIT

Interestingly you've proposed terminating the 375 at either Roma St or City and forcing interchange with rail previously to get to the valley.

When did I propose that?  However, I have proposed splitting the 375 as this would allow a common stop location in King George Square for the Bardon service with the 385.

That won't work. Transfers don't work when you can practically taste your destination, they are just a major frustration esp as more often than not the wait for the next service is longer than the time it takes to get their on your original service... and often when the service you'd be forced to transfer to is actually full.

Yes.

I think you need to take a breath and chill out on the 199. Like tramtrain said, it is popular for a reason and that is not your so called "funnelling". It is that it travels THROUGH not around is some weird bypass MAJOR DESTINATIONS in Brisbane that from a land use perspective support transit... including West End, City, and Fortitude Valley.

Well, it may have passengers for reasons besides the funnelling, but I say that the Valley-New Farm pax gained by the funnelling are outweighed by the City-New Farm pax which are lost because of the awfully slow route, especially heading outbound.

And encouraging people onto such a route when heading to the Valley from the City/Cultural Centre is simply inappropriate.  And if you can't see that, I don't know what to add.

[#Metro]

Further, I like to concentrate my efforts on winnable battles, and I think the 195/6 combo is winnable.

Tramtrain, is this more the 195 you'd propose?

I'd only go as far as Sydney street ferry as that 195 is meant to be load relief. However your 195 following 196 is good too and fits in with the idea of a stable network - same route, express services doing the same route but skipping stops...

So I'm happy with either.

[#Metro]

Nothing.  It's always been horses for courses.  Or to put it the way BT does: "Maximise the opportunity to transfer, minimise the need to transfer".

Oh yeah, that old smokescreen! Keep my passengers off trains!!! AT ALL COSTS!!! Even if that results in massive financial black hole appearing on QR's balance sheet which the QLD Government needs to then fill with massive subsidies because the train is carrying air... Even if that means passengers sit on Moggill Road for half an hour to one hour or congestion on Coronation Drive while the train zooms past!!

"Maximise the need for choice waste and inefficiency. Minimise the need for efficient use of pre-exisitng infrastructure".

I don't think TL would even consider such an improvement.

Well there is your answer then. Why bother spending huge amounts of effort trying to convince me of this? I don't work for TL and have zero influence what they do.

[somebody]

Oh yeah, that old smokescreen! Keep my passengers off trains!!! AT ALL COSTS!!! Even if that results in massive financial black hole appearing on QR's balance sheet which the QLD Government needs to then fill with massive subsidies because the train is carrying air... Even if that means passengers sit on Moggill Road for half an hour to one hour or congestion on Coronation Drive while the train zooms past!!

Sigh.  You are still assuming that no passengers will be put off PT by being forced to transfer.

"Maximise the need for choice waste and inefficiency. Minimise the need for efficient use of pre-exisitng infrastructure".

199 providing service between City and Fortitude Valley IS waste and efficiency.  You are only trotting out these arguments when it suits you.

I don't think TL would even consider such an improvement.

Well there is your answer then. Why bother spending huge amounts of effort trying to convince me of this? I don't work for TL and have zero influence what they do.

Because I felt the need to rebutt your points.  You may not like it, but I cannot stand by and allow the defence of mediocrity to stand.  People read what is said on this site.

[#Metro]

Sigh.  You are still assuming that no passengers will be put off PT by being forced to transfer.

A transport network that avoids interchange is more complicated, has to run more routes and has lower frequency than one based around interchange.
That is based on cold hard geometric facts. The dislike of interchange is more to do with the current rubbish that passes as "interchange" (such as places on the
rail network like at Fairfield which doesn't even have a bus stop! or at Indooroopilly with huge walking distances).

Low frequency and complexity are far more anti-public transport than getting up out of a bus and walking into a train.

Do you actually believe that a person sitting on Coronation Drive for one hour of delays on a bus is actually more convenient than the bus
going to Indooroopilly and them getting on a train that takes just 15 minutes flat to to get to the CBD?

"Maximise the need for choice waste and inefficiency. Minimise the need for efficient use of pre-exisitng infrastructure".
199 providing service between City and Fortitude Valley IS waste and efficiency.  You are only trotting out these arguments when it suits you.

Not everything has to do the interchange. Can you accept that? Or do you only take extreme positions where the network must be 100% interchange
or 100% direct service? My guiding principle is does it increase mobility. I think I have made my position quite clear. There should be a CORE FREQUENT NETWORK
consisting of mode-blind direct high frequency rail, high frequency BUZ and high frequency Ferries that other routes can then dump their passengers into through transfer.
In particular for buses, this means high frequency BUZ along arterial roads.
There is nothing inconsistent about this. You seem to be proposing a cut to what is a core frequent route.

Because I felt the need to rebutt your points.  You may not like it, but I cannot stand by and allow the defence of mediocrity to stand.  People read what is said on this site.

I don't understand why 195/196 going via Ivory Street full-time is not good enough. I also don't understand why 50 different bus routes need to do the City-Valley route.

[somebody]

Not everything has to do the interchange. Can you accept that?

Yes.

Or do you only take extreme positions where the network must be 100% interchange or 100% direct service?

No.

I admire your cheek accusing me of this.  You have not seen me argue for a Tivoli-Brisbane direct bus.  Or an Anzac Ave-CBD one.

You seem to be proposing a cut to what is a core frequent route.

Not really, it's an upgrade.

I don't understand why 195/196 going via Ivory Street full-time is not good enough. I also don't understand why 50 different bus routes need to do the City-Valley route.

The 196 would be a second best option.  Speeding up the 199 is the main game.  196 on Ivory St would only be an upgrade for Brunswick St as far as Barker St.  The 196 is already a bit of a milk run, I don't see why you'd bother so much with speeding up this service while keeping the 199 as a milk run.

[#Metro]

If you really want this
Do up a release explaining:

* what the problem is
* what you want as the solution
* and why it is better

I'm happy for people to disagree and put those views forward,
But I reserve my right to disagree and form my own opinion about things.

Maybe it is better, but I'm just not convinced at the moment.