Is it time for a complete bus rewite

[O_128]

It seems that we are getting to the stage where there is to much overlap and a reluctance to change routes due to a minorities crying. Maybe It's time for a complete rewrite similar to when the current numbering was introduced. This will allow planners to design routes with a clean slate based on demand rather than cramming more duplicates on.

Eg Eastern Suburbs Could be reduced to.

200- Carindale Buz Via Eastern Busway
201- Carindale Buz Via Wynnum road/Cannon Hill
203- Same
204- Same
205 - Balmoral 230/235 rolled into a loop either going via riding road or thynne road and terminating at morningside station
209- Carindale to UQ via eastern busway
210- Manly station BUZ via wooloongabba, wynnum road.
212- UQ lakes to cannon hill via woolongabba.

For me all the jumble of routes need to be replaced by a few legible routes of course there are more but here is the base of it. One thing would be getting rid of all thee confusing mess of Ps and Rockets and just upping the frequency.

This could be duplicated across brisbane and result in a much more efficient network especially on the west side where 80% of routes would terminate at indro

[Mr X]

^^ 212 should be 219  

I'd like to see the 191/192/195/196/198/199 redone. It's been chopped up so much in the last 5 years (191 and 193 being scrapped then reintroduced, 195 being chopped around, 191 segment at Fairfield becoming 196 but New Farm section becoming 199 etc.)

I'd introduce:
190: West End to Teneriffe BUZ (replaces 199)
191: Yeronga to New Farm park BUZ via Fairfield, Highgate Hill, CBD, Valley and Merthyr (replaces 196)
192: Highgate Hill local service down Boundary St, terminating in the city. (new service, but aim is to replace 198)
193: Teneriffe to City peak hour service via Ivory St tunnel
194: Merthyr to City peak hour service via Ivory St tunnel
195: Hamilton to West End BUZ via Newstead, Valley, CBD, South Brisbane, West End (Mollison and Montague Rds) to the ferry (replaces CityGlider)
199: City - UQ lakes service originating at Roma St and going via KGSBS, West End (limited stops), Dornoch Tce, Gladstone Rd to UQ (replaces 192)

I'm not sure a 193 or 194 route is really needed though.

[#Metro]

I would like to see all rockets become pre-paid. If it is a rocket, then it is pre-paid.
My view is:

* FEWER ROUTES
* along COMMON CORRIDORS
* STEAM IRONED
* FEEDING TO CORE FREQUENT NETWORK of bus, train and ferry
* WHICH STICK TO MAIN ARTERIAL ROADS
* AND HAVE DECENT STOP SPACING ~ 500 m for high speed

As tempting as it is, we cannot and should not BUZ everything!

[#Metro]

191: Yeronga to New Farm park BUZ via Fairfield, Highgate Hill, CBD, Valley and Merthyr (replaces 196)

This is a good idea and would allow the loop to be cut off 105 once and for all! The issue is Fairfield Gardens. Access to that is going to be difficult due to the road layout immediately next to the shopping centre (one way couplet) and therefore the walking distance involved, but it is not impossible.

[Mr X]

That's the problem with PT and one way roads. There needs to be a better connection to Fairfield Station too but as it is that is hard to fix. Making people cross two roads (one in and one out) to access the 191/196 will decrease permeability too .

The ultimate (but expensive fix) would be to reconfigure Fairfield Rd with the buses having a mini 'busway' (i.e. two lanes on the side in each direction on the Fairfield shops side of the road) for access past a mini station/premium stop next to the shops and then the busway ends where Fairfield Rd separates into two different roads. (A drawing might make it easier to understand). But for the sake of one BUZ route this would be a big waste of money.

I just can't see the 191/196 doing a loop behind the shops to the station either, that would be dumb and waste a lot of time.

EDIT:
Two trips per day (one morning outbound and one afternoon inbound) should be extended down Fairfield Rd and up Park Rd to service the TAFE/high school/primary school. I went to that primary school and there were NO direct buses, even to Fairfield just down the road. 

[Gazza]

It seems that we are getting to the stage where there is to much overlap and a reluctance to change routes due to a minorities crying. Maybe It's time for a complete rewrite similar to when the current numbering was introduced. This will allow planners to design routes with a clean slate based on demand rather than cramming more duplicates on.

This is has been my feeling for a long time. There is so much waste, illegibility, duplication and inefficiency that I reckon its worth going behind the scenes, forgetting about the entire basically (as not to introduce any bias or old mindsets...That said, naturally the most logical existing routes will still shine through and survive, but they are a minority), and just redraw a full network that puts most people within walking distance of a high frequency route. Yes it would be politically difficult, but it needs to be done eventually. The low usage/mode share of the existing bus network and poor fare recovery (Both through inefficiency and unpopularity) says to me it's largely ineffective.

Basically you'd shatter operations into two:
BT, Veolia, Surfside ect would handle:

-High frequency, 4 bph, which only travel along important roads, and would not snake around suburbia, and would aim to get most people covered. Would be laid out in a grid, so interchange would be needed for some.
-Feeders, which are determined by the frequency of the station they serve.

Half hourly or hourly routes would not be handled by these operators.

The other half of operations would be:

-Hourly welfare services, operated by minibuses. These services would be free, and would provide coverage in between.

[somebody]

They are getting even more reluctant to change anything IMO.

[STB]

Can I just mention one thing - can people in this forum (no one in particular) please stop using the word 'Welfare'.  It stinks of elitism and is not representative of those who use bus services, even if they do run hourly.  At the end of the day it's better that a bus service runs hourly than not at all, but don't give it such a terrible label for it.  Just call it simply an hourly bus service.

Just had to get my thoughts out there...

[Jonno]

Agree that we need to straighten out and rationalise our routes.  STB the reference to welfare is not elitist but a reflection of the service planning mindset.  The hourly service is provided not a serious transport alternative but to avoid being charged of isolating people. 

[Arnz]

What about referring to hourly bus services to the smaller town/regions as "Community" services rather.  Route 639 Nambour "Town loop" route is often referred as a "Community" service.

[O_128]

It seems that we are getting to the stage where there is to much overlap and a reluctance to change routes due to a minorities crying. Maybe It's time for a complete rewrite similar to when the current numbering was introduced. This will allow planners to design routes with a clean slate based on demand rather than cramming more duplicates on.

This is has been my feeling for a long time. There is so much waste, illegibility, duplication and inefficiency that I reckon its worth going behind the scenes, forgetting about the entire basically (as not to introduce any bias or old mindsets...That said, naturally the most logical existing routes will still shine through and survive, but they are a minority), and just redraw a full network that puts most people within walking distance of a high frequency route. Yes it would be politically difficult, but it needs to be done eventually. The low usage/mode share of the existing bus network and poor fare recovery (Both through inefficiency and unpopularity) says to me it's largely ineffective.

Basically you'd shatter operations into two:
BT, Veolia, Surfside ect would handle:

-High frequency, 4 bph, which only travel along important roads, and would not snake around suburbia, and would aim to get most people covered. Would be laid out in a grid, so interchange would be needed for some.
-Feeders, which are determined by the frequency of the station they serve.

Half hourly or hourly routes would not be handled by these operators.

The other half of operations would be:

-Hourly welfare services, operated by minibuses. These services would be free, and would provide coverage in between.

Exactly all the BUZ routes would be kept, some added and a lot of feeder services. the eastern busway duplication shows the problem already its not hard to change to a 66 at the mater.

[#Metro]

Transit serves 2 goals:

Patronage (BUZ etc)
Coverage (399s etc)

These two goals are in opposition to each other. My position is that a lot (but not all) of coverage services would be better suited to a door-to-door callup service and medical taxi than fixed bus routes.

[Gazza]

Can I just mention one thing - can people in this forum (no one in particular) please stop using the word 'Welfare'.  It stinks of elitism and is not representative of those who use bus services, even if they do run hourly.  At the end of the day it's better that a bus service runs hourly than not at all, but don't give it such a terrible label for it.  Just call it simply an hourly bus service.

Just had to get my thoughts out there...

What about calling them 'sh%t services'?...I think that is representative, because an hourly bus service is 'sh%t'  

But I don't mind the term 'Community Service'.

I didn't have time fully write what I had in mind earlier, but basically, Mufreight has said in the past that services recover so little of their costs, so they might as well make them free, and do away with fare collection in the process to save a bit of money.

Well, the thing is, It's lumping all services into the same basket, when there are inevitably ones that do have better potential than others.

So what I'm proposing is that community services are run free. They've got no hope of getting truly popular in the long run I guess, due to routing for coverage and population density, and perhaps higher than average use by pensioners etc, so in this case, you might as well just accept it, and make them free. If these are structured around interchange, then I guess you end up collecting a fare when they join the main line anyway.

On the other hand, your main services would be designed to maximise patronage at the expense of some coverage, and these would be full fare.
Interchange would be necessary for some routes.

[ozbob]

I think Gazza is on to something here.  Consider the aging of the population, which in turn is going to cause a need for a lot more community service type routes (in these I can include station buses?).  A re-think is needed to restructure the entire bus approach.  Capacity constraints on the bus ways as well will futher dictate a need to change the paradigm 'all buses cannot run through'. 

This is something that won't happen overnight, but no doubt will happen.

[SurfRail]

My own opinion is that the vast majority of bus routes - on the Gold Coast anyway - are sh%t because they are intentionally run to be sh%t.  They date from an era when services did not have strong government support and needed to be rationed to maximise customers per run with loops and diversioins, rather than stimulating demand with good routes, because the operators did not have the outlay to do that off the GC Highway.

Most of the built up area of the Gold Coast could easily support a network of 15 minute frequency services if they were straighter and more useful.  This requires govermment investment, not abandonment.

I do not support making public transport free for the sake of it (unless you have particular social goals such as assisting pensioners or children), or implementing widespread dial-up services. Given the enormous outlay required to make YourBus work, it is unlikely to be expanded further.  Services like this actually chew up dramatically more resources than a decent, legible, half-hourly bus route, which seems to be lost on many of us.

[dwb]

I didn't have time fully write what I had in mind earlier, but basically, Mufreight has said in the past that services recover so little of their costs, so they might as well make them free, and do away with fare collection in the process to save a bit of money.

Go card already enables transfers for free.

[dwb]

^^ 212 should be 219  

I'd like to see the 191/192/195/196/198/199 redone. It's been chopped up so much in the last 5 years (191 and 193 being scrapped then reintroduced, 195 being chopped around, 191 segment at Fairfield becoming 196 but New Farm section becoming 199 etc.)

I'd introduce:
190: West End to Teneriffe BUZ (replaces 199)
191: Yeronga to New Farm park BUZ via Fairfield, Highgate Hill, CBD, Valley and Merthyr (replaces 196)
192: Highgate Hill local service down Boundary St, terminating in the city. (new service, but aim is to replace 198)
193: Teneriffe to City peak hour service via Ivory St tunnel
194: Merthyr to City peak hour service via Ivory St tunnel
195: Hamilton to West End BUZ via Newstead, Valley, CBD, South Brisbane, West End (Mollison and Montague Rds) to the ferry (replaces CityGlider)
199: City - UQ lakes service originating at Roma St and going via KGSBS, West End (limited stops), Dornoch Tce, Gladstone Rd to UQ (replaces 192)

I'm not sure a 193 or 194 route is really needed though.

Why would re-rename Brisbane's most popular and understood route just for the sake of it?? And the new 199 you propose is more or less the 66+109 (but not as good) that many on this forum have already suggested time and time again.

[Gazza]

^DWB What point are you trying to make by quoting what is effective a small 'lead in' to a more extensive post out of context, and then responding only to that.

Go card already enables transfers for free.

Tell me something I don't know.

[Mr X]

Why would re-rename Brisbane's most popular and understood route just for the sake of it?? And the new 199 you propose is more or less the 66+109 (but not as good) that many on this forum have already suggested time and time again.

While not a necessity per se, just mainly for streamlining bus numbers. Seeing as we were talking about a complete rewrite of the system.
199 revert back to 190 as it is the route it used to be back before 2006 (yes I know they switched it's destination from Merthyr to Teneriffe). Plus it's in keeping with other BUZ's 120/130/140/150 

192 as 199 so that it follows the xx9 route fashion to UQ.

[Gazza]

Plus it's in keeping with other BUZ's 120/130/140/150  Grin

Do we rename the 444 then 440 

[SurfRail]

I will add further than I am absolutely in favour of a complete re-write.  Very little of the 3-digit renumbering resulted in actual realignment of routes or elimination of historical oddities.

The government needs to commission somebody else to come in to apply world's best practice to designing a completely new network for the whole of SEQ, and implementing it region by region over say 2 years.  Basically, I don't want TransLink involved in planning these routes.  The anecdotal evidence I have received indicates that they have too many people who are thinking in the wrong direction, who are protecting their own little bailiwicks or who are very well-intentioned but inexperienced/uneducated about world's best practice.  They need a complete cultural rewrite before I would even consider having them undertake this task internally.

Completely ignore existing routes.  This is largely what happened to the outer metropolitan regions when reviewed in 2004-2006, all of which have drastically better service levels than 10 years ago (albeit still not fantastic).  The only things to take any real cognisance of would be:

- Depot locations
- Existing fleet size
- Planned future investment in depots/fleet/rail infrastructure etc
- The road network, subject to the installation of some bus priority infrastructure or access if feasible in certain places (eg I'm thinking of the Sinnamon Park and USC "green links" here which are outside the general access road network.)

I wouldn't even let them take into account existing bus stops or bus interchanges - these need to be reviewed as well, including in the CBD.

Let the consultants have free-reign to designing the system from the ground up, including service types, fleet allocation, route numbering, stop locations, operating hours, etc.  Get QR and local government / ULDA / DIP planning people involved for consultative purposes so it is happening within a land-use and rail integration context.

The government should be very strongly encouraged not to resist the end plan in large part - or face the consequences of some type of stick (no or curtailed/delayed Federal CRR funding perhaps?).

[#Metro]

I think we are getting off track here. Forget about numbering schemes!
Core Frequent Network and steam ironing first please.

[Mr X]

Plus it's in keeping with other BUZ's 120/130/140/150  Grin

Do we rename the 444 then 440 

No because it's the western trunk like 111/222/333

[Jonno]

Agree that we need to straighten out and rationalise our routes.  STB the reference to welfare is not elitist but a reflection of the service planning mindset.  The hourly service is provided not a serious transport alternative but to avoid being charged of isolating people.  

[SurfRail]

I think we are getting off track here. Forget about numbering schemes!
Core Frequent Network and steam ironing first please.

I think that these can only be achieved properly with a complete reboot - tinkering at the edges has informed basically everything they have done to date.

[O_128]

I agree with you surfrail, I would leave Tl out of it and contract it out to an overseas company, maybe whoever does the london buses. All I would give them is the current BUZ routes and let them go wild. Numbers are totally unimportant and can come later.

If we managed to cut out all the crap that exists it would possible to then give or 4 BUZes to each district.

BUZes I would look at would be the Wynnum Road Buz, A KSD BUZ with T2 lane introduction. Mt Omaney Buz that feeds into darra before continuing to the city ( Im sure something similar was proposed on here)

(sorry for the spelling typed off my phone)

[Mr X]

Light rail down Melbourne St to replace 199 (and possibly 196 too ) would go very nicely indeed and free up buses for other routes.

It will happen (I hope)...... in 2100.. 

[dwb]

Light rail down Melbourne St to replace 199 (and possibly 196 too ) would go very nicely indeed and free up buses for other routes.

It will happen (I hope)...... in 2100.. 

Why do these people deserve light rail over the rest of Brisbane?

[dwb]

I didn't have time fully write what I had in mind earlier, but basically, Mufreight has said in the past that services recover so little of their costs, so they might as well make them free, and do away with fare collection in the process to save a bit of money.

Go card already enables transfers for free.

^DWB What point are you trying to make by quoting what is effective a small 'lead in' to a more extensive post out of context, and then responding only to that.

Go card already enables transfers for free.

Tell me something I don't know.

So the bit that I didn't requote included:

So what I'm proposing is that community services are run free. They've got no hope of getting truly popular in the long run I guess, due to routing for coverage and population density, and perhaps higher than average use by pensioners etc, so in this case, you might as well just accept it, and make them free. If these are structured around interchange, then I guess you end up collecting a fare when they join the main line anyway.

On the other hand, your main services would be designed to maximise patronage at the expense of some coverage, and these would be full fare.
Interchange would be necessary for some routes.

Um, that fact that interchange is free means that you can run any type of feeder "free" for those passengers of your "maximum patronage" routes. Actually that is how the whole system is run. There is no extra "cost" to the passenger to get these services, nor is there an interchange fee, so what is your problem?

[Mr X]

Light rail down Melbourne St to replace 199 (and possibly 196 too ) would go very nicely indeed and free up buses for other routes.

It will happen (I hope)...... in 2100.. 

Why do these people deserve light rail over the rest of Brisbane?

Because the 199 is a very highly used route and a lot of development is going that way? The 199 is already every 5mins in peak!

The 199 should light railified when the SE busway is lightrailified.

I wasn't entirely serious about the 196 

[SurfRail]

Why do these people deserve light rail over the rest of Brisbane?

Darn tooting.  Light rail to Upper Brookfield and Gibson Island please. 

[Mr X]

\And the new 199 you propose is more or less the 66+109 (but not as good) that many on this forum have already suggested time and time again.

Forgot this little gem.

Nothing like the 66+109 that's been proposed at all. Does this service the South East Busway? NO. This is the 192 renamed 199 and sent up to Roma St instead of Adelaide Street.   I even said, replaces 192. It's not meant to be a major CBD service.

[Gazza]

Um, that fact that interchange is free means that you can run any type of feeder "free" for those passengers of your "maximum patronage" routes. Actually that is how the whole system is run. There is no extra "cost" to the passenger to get these services, nor is there an interchange fee, so what is your problem?

Yes, I know that interchange is free, but fares aren't. That's the difference.

Lets say somewhere around Indro or Garden City or Carindale or whatever had a patch of suburbia serviced by a community route that terminated at the shopping centre (Where they can connect with a BUZ if they want to).
If grannies were using it just for going down as far as  the shops then they wouldn't be paying anything.
Under the current system they would be paying $2.00/$1.13

[#Metro]

I reckon they can afford $2. Not sure where this thread is headed...

[dwb]

Um, that fact that interchange is free means that you can run any type of feeder "free" for those passengers of your "maximum patronage" routes. Actually that is how the whole system is run. There is no extra "cost" to the passenger to get these services, nor is there an interchange fee, so what is your problem?

Yes, I know that interchange is free, but fares aren't. That's the difference.

Lets say somewhere around Indro or Garden City or Carindale or whatever had a patch of suburbia serviced by a community route that terminated at the shopping centre (Where they can connect with a BUZ if they want to).
If grannies were using it just for going down as far as  the shops then they wouldn't be paying anything.
Under the current system they would be paying $2.00/$1.13

I don't believe free fares are the answer to anything.

[dwb]

Light rail down Melbourne St to replace 199 (and possibly 196 too ) would go very nicely indeed and free up buses for other routes.

It will happen (I hope)...... in 2100.. 

Why do these people deserve light rail over the rest of Brisbane?

Because the 199 is a very highly used route and a lot of development is going that way? The 199 is already every 5mins in peak!

The 199 should light railified when the SE busway is lightrailified.

I wasn't entirely serious about the 196 

Before I sound off, can you tell me exactly what you mean by "lightrail" ie, service characteristics, infrastructure, row etc etc?

[Mr X]

Segrate Melbourne St into two different forms of transport, cars on one side, trams on the other. Follow down Boundary Street to 199 route (or go via Montague Rd.. but should at least service Boundary St). Just depends where future development will be.

I am talking the trams we see in Melbourne ->



Or perhaps larger. On street running through the quieter streets of West End shouldn't be an issue I think.

We used to have trams through West End, did we not?

[#Metro]

Trams are not really LRT.
LRT runs in Class A or Class B as a minimum IMHO. However the capacity would be useful indeed.

[Bulimba30A]

I think it's time for a complete rewrite.  I dont see how else you can manage the infrastructure bottle necks (eg cultural centre and cbd generally) without it.  As the latest eastern suburbs announcement has shown, the improvements (while welcome) can't seem to be done without new route numbers and added complexity.

To be honest, those areas which already have excellent public transport (ie mains rd and possibly old Cleveland rd) need to be simplified, with removal of duplication into areas not served/effective cross town routes. I think the best way to achieve that is a complete rewrite based on sound principles and foundations.

[somebody]

The government needs to commission somebody else to come in to apply world's best practice to designing a completely new network for the whole of SEQ, and implementing it region by region over say 2 years.  Basically, I don't want TransLink involved in planning these routes.  The anecdotal evidence I have received indicates that they have too many people who are thinking in the wrong direction, who are protecting their own little bailiwicks or who are very well-intentioned but inexperienced/uneducated about world's best practice.  They need a complete cultural rewrite before I would even consider having them undertake this task internally.

I wonder if this is still to be recommended with the TL CEO moving on?  I'd like to give the new person a chance to drive some positive change.

(I know you wrote that before the resignation was announced.)

I definitely agree that Translink have been quite useless over the last 3 years.  Everything they touch, they screw up, and the financial performance also supports this.  And things they should do they don't.  They have publicised some half decent plans such as 340 truncation + 330 BUZ, for example.  Not entirely convinced of that one, but it would be better for something to actually be done, even if they don't get everything right IMO.