Terms of use Privacy About us Media Contact

Author Topic: Route 198  (Read 5814 times)

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Route 198
« on: April 26, 2011, 10:08:50 AM »
Route 198
http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/081027_198.pdf

Currently subjected to large amounts of indirect routing. It is also a one way loop which means I have only ever seen about three or four people on this bus. Isn't the TransLink standard 7 people per bus before it is reviewed?

With a FlexiLink or paratransit service, this bus route can be radically altered to provide a patronage service, while guaranteeing that people an still get to important places like PA or Mater hospitals (and it is probably faster to take 199 and change to a busway service for these destinations anyway). Because the route is now much shorter, you probably could get 15 minute frequency on this all day!

It can become much shorter, and simpler. Services on the 192 Dornoch Tce can also be made more frequent as well. I haven't drawn it all the way into the CBD as I am not 100% certain about whether it should just feed the 199 and CityGlider at Mollison St Coles.


« Last Edit: April 24, 2017, 04:49:34 PM by #Metro »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Route 198
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2011, 05:46:19 PM »
You have raised a valid point here, TT.

However, rather than reroute an infrequent route like the 198, which really doesn't matter where it goes, I think the solution is to have the 199 continue along Boundary St rather than use Hardgrave Rd, which is right next to the CityGlider.  Doing so also would completely remove the need for the 192 to run along Dornoch Tce, unless you are thinking of the need to reach UQ.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: Route 198
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2011, 06:15:08 PM »
I don't really care anymore, just get some decent service down those roads. Pull out the iron, abolish 198 and do something about 192.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Andrew

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 207
Re: Route 198
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2011, 06:26:08 PM »
The 198 is reasonably patronised from what I can gather. I often see people waiting for it along Gladstone Road while doing 196/7's. It also is the only bus to service some areas of Highgate Hill. The 198 seems to attract older or elderly people and I think removing the bus route completely would severely impact their mobility as walking a long distance could be out of the question for some people. I think that options such as putting another bus route on in the opposite direction and/or re-routing the 198 via Woolloongabba busway station for greater connectivity would be far better suggestions.  As for 7 passengers, it might mean 7 individuals per trip, which would be different to 7 people on the bus at one time.
Schrödinger's Bus:
Early, On-time and Late simultaneously, until you see it...

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: Route 198
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2011, 06:43:25 PM »
I think it should be reviewed. It is a one way loop whose services are made redundant by the BUZification of 196. Much of the route is already
serviced by busway/cityglider/BUZ196/192.

A straightening and re-routing down boundary street to West End Ferry terminal would cover the unserviced area in West End/Highgate Hill as well, and cash could be
freed up to add more 192s, for example.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 07:02:11 PM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: Route 198
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2011, 07:01:26 PM »
page 46 TransLink Network Plan
http://tdsa.org.au/Translink_Policy_and_Strategy.pdf

Quote
"The challenge is to fill gaps in the TL network
while ensuring that, overall, services are well patronised
and represent value for money. This is about using taxpayer
funds wisely by trading off competing demands to get the best
out of the public transport system.

In some cases, public transport services will not be
viable because of low demand. This may be caused by factors
such as low population density, dispersed travel patterns and high
car use.

By setting out minium patronage levels needed to maintain
or improve PT services, TL can ensure it uses taxpayer funds effectively.
However, tehse patronage levels should not be hard and fast rules. Each situation
needs to be judged on its merits, and balanced against competing demands for limited
funding.

Minimum patronage levels can be used to identify when TL should consider alternative
services (for example demand-responsive services), a lower level of service than the
minimum service standards (see strategic priority 3.1), or no services if alternatives are not viable.

When a service falls below the minimum patronage levels to justify a TransLink service, local governments
or other organisations may choose to fund these services to deliver a higher level of service
than justified by the patronage levels.

"minimum patronage level to maintain mimimum service standard
- 7 average passengers per in-service hour

"benchmark patronage level to below which the level of service provision is kept under
review- 14 average passengers per in-service hour

http://tdsa.org.au/Translink_Policy_and_Strategy.pdf

I think route 198 could be kept but sent down Boundary road, Ryan Street and then to West End Ferry. So that unserviced pocket has
services, Gladstone Rd etc gets the 196 BUZ, 199 and CityGlider cover the rest of West End. Up to TL really. The service and routing as it is now
is pretty bad and not good bang for buck.

I still tend to think that welfare goals would be better met by a flexilink service overlaid with patronage services...
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Andrew

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 207
Re: Route 198
« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2011, 07:08:58 PM »
Yes but what about linking West End & Highgate Hill directly to the PA Hospital, Woolloongabba and the Mater Hospital?  That's what the 198 does.  The 198 is actually quite an old bus route having been started as the 444 hail and ride back in the early to mid 1990's.  It wouldn't hurt to review it - on that I can agree.  Another thought I actually had was route the 198 via the busway and then turn left into Grey St before Cultural Centre.  Downside would be missing Brisbane State High though.
Schrödinger's Bus:
Early, On-time and Late simultaneously, until you see it...

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: Route 198
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2011, 07:43:48 AM »
Quote
Yes but what about linking West End & Highgate Hill directly to the PA Hospital, Woolloongabba and the Mater Hospital?

Because it would be faster to just catch the bus and change at Cultural Centre IMHO or walk from Dutton Pk station to these destinations. Or catch 192 to UQ lakes and interchange. 198 runs only half hourly and hourly on weekends.
Furhtermore, due to the topography of that area some streets it is not possible to have two way operation. Thirdly it runs on slow streets, so is very unattractive. This bus route is textbook example of how NOT to operate a bus service!

It has all the bad features you can imagine

- multiple timewasting loops
- wasting time on slow streets
- low frequency
- services already redundant and overlapped by high frequency services
- one way loop operation
- totally illegible
- ancient hail and ride operation
- stops on the wrong side of PA hospital, the hilly side far from the entry which if you are infirm
or aged is going to be a hassle. The busway side is much better access wise and goes via a walkway straight into the building.

I think it TL should pull out the chainsaw and cut the route to something that is fast and simpler.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5042
Re: Route 198
« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2011, 08:24:35 AM »
TT, while I agree with your sentiments about stop spacing,etc for major trunk routes, there is also the need for closer spaced stopping routes which serve the backstreets and provide a 'welfare' routing if thats what you want to call it. Such routings are good for collecting people and getting them to a hub.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: Route 198
« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2011, 09:29:32 AM »
Actually, I didn't mention close stop spacing with regards to 198...

The 198 serves the normal 196 bus stops, so stop spacing at least on the areas already duplicated by 199 and 196 are a non-argument IMHO,
because isn't wherever 196 stops and 199 stops, the 198 also stops? So isn't the stop spacing is the same on these duplicated sections?

I am a bit surprised how hard it seems to remove or re-model what is obviously a dead branch from the system...

I'm more in favour of separating welfare services from patronage services so that both goals
can be focused on. 198 may well provide 100 units of mobility for 7 people on average per in-service hour, however I don't agree that those
100 units of mobility MUST be provided by a specific vehicle with four or six wheels called 'bus' in all cases
.

I think a flexilink service or increased funding for a council cab service, which picks you up from your front door
would serve welfare goals much better and minimise walking distance absolutely, leaving 65-seat buses and the $$ locked up within them to do what they
do best- do routes that make them full of passengers! Remodelling the route would also cover the underserviced Highgate hill area
and do so with higher frequency because the route is shorter.

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/public-transport/special-taxi-services/council-cabs/index.htm
« Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 09:42:37 AM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5042
Re: Route 198
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2011, 10:01:29 AM »
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm anti-Flexilink in places where buses can and should be provided. This isn't somewhere with a low population, this is the inner city.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8130
Re: Route 198
« Reply #11 on: May 28, 2011, 10:09:58 AM »
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm anti-Flexilink in places where buses can and should be provided. This isn't somewhere with a low population, this is the inner city.

Then why is this bus route so poorly patronised?  Hint - it's got nothing to do with its catchment...
Ride the G:

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: Route 198
« Reply #12 on: May 28, 2011, 10:20:52 AM »
Quote
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm anti-Flexilink in places where buses can and should be provided. This isn't somewhere with a low population, this is the inner city.

I have a different view, and that view is

1. Mobility is the product, there are many ways to provide it, so I tend to be blind to mode

2. Separating patronage services from welfare services will allow for specialisation, and gains to overall welfare to be made.
Patronage services can be ironed out to serve patronage goals better (less subsidy, more revenue for TL, more services),
and welfare services can be sent to people's front door to do shared point to point trips to serve welfare goals much better. In some cases buses can still be used if that is
what is better.

At the moment, it is a bit like twins stuck together- trying to do both goals well results in none of them being done well.

I note that you don't justify why you believe only bus should be used in this area, you simply say it should be a certain way.
I just don't understand why people insist on sending a 65 seat bus to do something like 198 when at the same time people struggle to squeeze on to something like 109 UQ Lakes.

Either they can re-model it or cut it, or BCC can fund it. Up to TL really. This route has ALL the worst features imaginable in it, and people still have loss-aversion reactions
to suggestions that it should be changed or cut. It is a one way loop, not useful at all. And mobility can be provided to those people in other ways.

I just don't like it when my Paris-level fares go up 15% and 75% taxpayer subsidies, some of the highest in the world, supporting low frequency low quality services.
I want my tax and fare $$ money spent properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion
Quote
In economics and decision theory, loss aversion refers to people's tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains. Some studies suggest that losses are twice as powerful, psychologically, as gains. Loss aversion was first convincingly demonstrated by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 10:30:38 AM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5042
Re: Route 198
« Reply #13 on: May 28, 2011, 10:43:03 AM »
I'm not opposed to making changes to the route so it is less loopy, however, when you look at TT's proposed route in the OP where the idea is that everything else is served by something like Flexilink (very much the opposite of turn up and go) then I am opposed to that.

As much as the interchange at CC is good and allows passengers to change to a service to the Gabba/PA Hospital, it still takes far too long when compared to a direct trip (even if said trip was via some back streets). I have caught a bus from Boundary St/Vulture St to Woollongabba busway station and it still took me about 30 minute to do it. Even on the current route, the trip between these two locations on the 198 is 20 minutes, which is via the PA Hospital.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: Route 198
« Reply #14 on: May 28, 2011, 11:17:47 AM »
Quote
I'm not opposed to making changes to the route so it is less loopy, however, when you look at TT's proposed route in the OP where the idea is that everything else is served by something like Flexilink (very much the opposite of turn up and go) then I am opposed to that.

198 is hardly turn up and go, and it will never be TUAG the way it is. People seem to want welfare services but have BUZ level service frequency on it, I don't think that's going to happen or should happen. There are already heaps of other services in this area- why are they not good enough?

You have to wait half and hour or one hour on weekends, then add your journey time. So that's what, 45 minutes already.

With a bus every 15 minutes you can catch cityglider or 199 and interchange to cultural centre to a 109 or an Ipswich road service. Or you could catch 196 and walk from Dutton Park to PA. There are also medical services too if you are too sick to walk, and I would advocate for these to come under or be funded, even in part, by TL. This works overseas, I don't understand why it is so hard to do here.

Quote
As much as the interchange at CC is good and allows passengers to change to a service to the Gabba/PA Hospital, it still takes far too long when compared to a direct trip (even if said trip was via some back streets). I have caught a bus from Boundary St/Vulture St to Woollongabba busway station and it still took me about 30 minute to do it. Even on the current route, the trip between these two locations on the 198 is 20 minutes, which is via the PA Hospital.

But the service isn't direct, because you have to do the other side of the loop as it is one way. Unless of course you walk to the busway and change.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 11:23:49 AM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5042
Re: Route 198
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2011, 12:14:25 PM »
But the service isn't direct, because you have to do the other side of the loop as it is one way. Unless of course you walk to the busway and change.
Thats an argument for making it a 2 way loop, not changing it all together.

I never said the 198 was a turn up an go service, but you at least know when it will come. Flexilink you have to call and book it.

Probably not the 198 as it is, but I do think there is a use for high frequency 'welfare' routes.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: Route 198
« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2011, 10:08:40 AM »
Quote
Thats an argument for making it a 2 way loop, not changing it all together.

Yes but those areas are already well served by BUZ 196, BUZ 199, improve 192, SE Busway, and CityGlider. NONE of these existed (maybe bar 192) when highgate hill hail and ride was begun. You also have geographical/topographical issues too with turning difficulties etc and all the streets are SLOW back streets too.

So you are going to spend 2x the cash now on the same old crud that will probably not gain a lot of patronage due to the other anti-patronage features in this route.

Quote
I never said the 198 was a turn up an go service, but you at least know when it will come. Flexilink you have to call and book it.
Yes, but that is a small inconvenience to pay for 1 person inconvenienced rather than have every single service of every single day forever inconvenienced. If they have to book it, then they have to book it.

Quote
Probably not the 198 as it is, but I do think there is a use for high frequency 'welfare' routes.

This is a waste!
« Last Edit: May 29, 2011, 11:06:39 AM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5042
Re: Route 198
« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2011, 10:54:29 PM »
Not really. Those routes serve the main roads in the area. Have you tried walking up those hills? Even if it is just every half hour, I see a need for SOMETHING that runs directly between West End and the Gabba/PA Hospital. Yes there the busway and its easy to transfer, but for travelling one suburb over its like taking one step back to go 2 forward. I have done it, but if I had to do it repeatedly, I would most likely just drive. I already pointed out the even the current loop which you say is "slow" gets you from Boundary/Vulture St to the Gabba just as fast (trip time wise, not including the initial wait, but including any transfer wait) as taking the 199 then changing to another service. If you straightened out the route, either make it a 2 way loop or turning it into a standard line route you would provide a decent connection and could still serve the streets at the bottom of some of the hills.

You say its a waste, but I see it as an eventuality. Are you saying that everyone is going to have to live within 800m bubbles around BUZ stops on major roads?
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: Route 198
« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2011, 01:43:59 AM »
Quote
Not really. Those routes serve the main roads in the area.
Main roads are some of the best places to put PT.

Quote
Have you tried walking up those hills? Even if it is just every half hour, I see a need for SOMETHING that runs directly between West End and the Gabba/PA Hospital.

Catch 192 to UQ Lakes and Transfer. Or 196 and walk to PA. Tranfers are a bugbear that can be lived with.

Quote
Yes there the busway and its easy to transfer, but for travelling one suburb over its like taking one step back to go 2 forward. I have done it, but if I had to do it repeatedly, I would most likely just drive.


So? You can't serve everywhere to everywhere trips with a direct bus. And secondly there is a high opportunity cost to a route like this, at least in its current form.

Quote
I already pointed out the even the current loop which you say is "slow" gets you from Boundary/Vulture St to the Gabba just as fast (trip time wise, not including the initial wait, but including any transfer wait) as taking the 199 then changing to another service. If you straightened out the route, either make it a 2 way loop or turning it into a standard line route you would provide a decent connection and could still serve the streets at the bottom of some of the hills.

Agreed, which is why there is a proposal up there. Perhaps post a map of your own?

Quote
You say its a waste, but I see it as an eventuality. Are you saying that everyone is going to have to live within 800m bubbles around BUZ stops on major roads?

No, but funding is always limiting. That's why flexilink and paratransit services are important. You can get 100% coverage of a suburb- you can't do that with a welfare bus route without turning it into a maze-piece and then requiring a lot of vehicles to do the now contorted route (longer route = more buses = more $$$ required to run it at a given frequency). Which is why, in part, these services are low frequency.

If coverage is what you want, you can get coverage much better by letting some or all of the route be unfixed.

There are over 200 bus routes in Brisbane. It would take over 100 years bring them all up to 15 minute standard at a rate of 2 BUZifications per year and assuming infinite funding... how realistic is it to have a BUZ air parcel service.

198 in its current form is one of THE WORST bus routes in Brisbane. Textbook case of a terrible route.

Time to fix it up or dump it for something better.

I agree that people need mobility. I don't agree that mobility must be provided by a fixed route bus in all cases.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5042
Re: Route 198
« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2011, 12:08:44 PM »
I'm not against transfers, however when its for such a short trip they aren't always practical. In this case I think the key reason for a non-main road route is the hills. I just think there needs to be something that serves the area around Lyons Playground (while its only a block from Dornoch Tce, the hill there is an absolute killer) and then also serving straight through one of the streets between Dornoch Tce and Vulture St, so perhaps just Spring St onto Baynes St then via Gloucester St to Annerley Rd on to the Gabba from there. I just feel while the 199/City Glider connects West End to the City and the north well, the links from the south and east are not so flash. Yes they can change at the Cultural Center, but especially when coming from the south that gives you a decent dog leg.

I'm also not in favour of just coming up with things on the forum without know much about the area and what trips people want to take. I would be the first to say I know very little about the goings on of West End.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: Route 198
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2011, 01:38:44 PM »
I've been in Lyons playground, there is a nice bikeway nearby but the area has some sharp elevation/embankments. 198 runs one way through this area around the playground and doing two way could be a problem due to the way the roads are around there.

If the 198 was steam ironed, this area may not be directly served, but you could walk out to boundary street and catch the service from there. There is also Dornoch Tce and 192

Sankey Street http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=West+End+QLD,+Australia&aq=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.014453,111.181641&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=West+End+Queensland,+Australia&ll=-27.487496,153.01345&spn=0.001547,0.003393&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=-27.487496,153.01345&panoid=-QsFY3h3FWQesl6XGkctBg&cbp=12,195.12,,0,9.25

you can see the obvious problem with St James Street
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=West+End+QLD,+Australia&aq=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.014453,111.181641&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=West+End+Queensland,+Australia&ll=-27.487557,153.014306&spn=0.000778,0.001696&t=h&z=20

I'm open to changes, but preserving the route as is or even minor changes- no... wholesale steam iron on this one IMHO.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5042
Re: Route 198
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2011, 10:10:27 PM »
Well in the steam iron, all I say is try and keep it straight, but try to stick to un-served areas and connect it to the east not the north. Yes 192 goes to UQ and thats a connection but the turn around and mucking about getting across the bridge and back makes it unattractive.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8130
Re: Route 198
« Reply #22 on: July 06, 2011, 11:51:33 AM »
Jarrett Walker has a very pertinent post on this sort of symbolic bus route:

http://www.humantransit.org/2011/07/los-angeles-deleting-some-lines-can-be-fair.html
Ride the G:

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: Route 198
« Reply #23 on: July 06, 2011, 01:42:23 PM »
Quote
If your mission is to serve a whole city or region, designing transit routes around any self-identified group of people is almost always a bad idea.

Very wise words indeed. 198 is an anachronism! Either dump it or full blast steam iron into it, and send it to the West End Ferry.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Mr X

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1465
Re: Route 198
« Reply #24 on: July 11, 2011, 11:21:27 AM »
How about this?
It duplicates route 192 a little too much though, but route 192 doesn't operate Sundays I believe so retains a service along Dornoch Tce. As TT said it could go via West End ferry.

We lose a service along Cornwall St side to the PA though.

The user once known as Happy Bus User (HBU)
The opinions contained within my posts and profile are my own and don't necessarily reflect those of the greater Rail Back on Track community.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8130
Re: Route 198
« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2011, 11:31:49 AM »
How about this?
It duplicates route 192 a little too much though, but route 192 doesn't operate Sundays I believe so retains a service along Dornoch Tce. As TT said it could go via West End ferry.

We lose a service along Cornwall St side to the PA though.

It duplicates high-frequency services in every single direction - busway, 109, 196, 199, Cityglider.  The only solution I think is to just scrap it and invest the resources on a redesigned 192 or elsewhere.
Ride the G:

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 94800
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Route 198
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2013, 10:39:51 AM »
http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/081027_198.pdf

Still has weekly, monthly ticket options etc .....
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline Mr X

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1465
Re: Route 198
« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2017, 11:57:14 AM »
Why does this bus route still exist?

I took a ride on it yesterday afternoon from the Mater to West End. Aside from one passenger who got off when I got on, there was no one else on the bus, no one got on for the entire journey and there weren't even many people around any of the stops! I'd be surprised if it still gets 7 people/hour to justify existing.

It's a by gone relic from before the 196, 199 and cityglider were high frequency and before the busway existed.

p.s. why did they spend all this money on a flash new 198 only stop on Vulture St when there is a 196 stop 100m away which the 198 can't service. Delete that 196 stop (its in the middle of two traffic lights so whenever it stops the bus has to sit through two cycles- look it up on street view!) and move the 196 to this stop when the 198 is scrapped.
The user once known as Happy Bus User (HBU)
The opinions contained within my posts and profile are my own and don't necessarily reflect those of the greater Rail Back on Track community.

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 94800
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Route 198
« Reply #28 on: April 24, 2017, 12:55:12 PM »
Why does it still exist?

I seem to recall this route 198 was the subject of political hysteria during the initial 2013 bus reform attempt by TransLink.

I don't think there were any bus stops fitted out with knitting though just angry residents and enraged politicians.

Perhaps the reason nobody was on it is as follows:

a. The previous passengers that frequented the 198 have caught the great bus in the sky.

or ...

b. Other bus routes have become their preferred option.

Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: Route 198
« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2017, 04:48:58 PM »
Quote
Why does this bus route still exist?

I took a ride on it yesterday afternoon from the Mater to West End. Aside from one passenger who got off when I got on, there was no one else on the bus, no one got on for the entire journey and there weren't even many people around any of the stops! I'd be surprised if it still gets 7 people/hour to justify existing.

Well, just read some of the earlier posts of people advocating die-hard retention even when it has become less relevant since the 196, 199 and CityGlider were all upgraded to BUZ or better.

It is always harder to remove something that introduce something due to "loss aversion" effects.

Way to remove it is to merge it with 192 and extend to Brisbane Powerhouse.

Quote
192 Powerhouse
UQ Lakes, Highgate Hill, West End Ferry, CBD, New Farm (James St), Brisbane Powerhouse
----
Simpler and direct service than BCC 198. Access to PA Hospital by changing to route 66 at UQ Lakes or Cultural Centre. More buses during peak hour.

http://tiny.cc/newnetwork

TransLink should review services that are low patronage, particularly if they are low patronage in a general high patronage area like West End.

Helen Abrahams is gone, replaced by Jonathan Sri. He might have a different idea on the 198, the Greens generally want to fix up PT and are now more open to bus solutions (rather than LRT-everywhere) so he might be receptive to change there.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Online James

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
Re: Route 198
« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2017, 06:11:26 PM »
Demographically, this area of Brisbane in particular is going through gentrification. As the elderly residents move into higher care facilities such as retirement villages, or pass away, the number of people using the route will dwindle, as their houses become either student rentals or fancy homes/apartments, neither of which require 'coverage' routes to keep them mobile. The elderly have unique needs and make *very* good news stories. The media know what sells.

What needs to happen is that the 198 should be removed and replaced with FlexiTaxis for those who are 65+ or disabled. Eventually this can be phased out as the elderly population in the area moves on. It doesn't matter if the route is low patronage - all it takes is a few 'concerned locals' to band together and a mole hill can turn into a mountain. Look at the 116.
Is it really that hard to run frequent, reliable public transport?

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 


“You can't understand a city without using its public transportation system.” -- Erol Ozan