POLL: 393 replacement

[somebody]

I'd envisage something like this, running every 5 minutes in peak and probably every 15 minutes weekday daytimes and until 7pm or so.  It would reduce demand on the 66 so may not be done.  I'd think having demand in two directions in both peaks is a real positive to this one.

[STB]

Nah, as someone who has caught the 393 on a number of occasions (between Bowen Hills and RBWH/QUT KG), the link between Bowen Hills and RBWH is still needed.  Also traffic along that section of road can get quite heavy during the peak hour, while going through the back way along the current 393 route, the traffic is much lighter.

What you should really be asking is what could be done to improve the interchange at Bowen Hills, rather than fiddling with the 393 between Bowen Hills and RBWH, and I'm talking from experience here.

The section between Teneriffe and Bowen Hills though I'm comfy with that part being chopped off.  Demand from my time catching the 393 is low.

[somebody]

What you should really be asking is what could be done to improve the interchange at Bowen Hills,

How do you suggest that could be done?

EDIT: I'd think most people heading to RB&WH from the northern train lines would use the 370/375/379 services to interchange at Fortitude Valley.  Are you saying this is not so?

[STB]

What you should really be asking is what could be done to improve the interchange at Bowen Hills,

How do you suggest that could be done?

A few suggestions...

You could remove some of the on street parking and install a single bus stop along Hudd or Jamieson St and have a one way loop for the 393.

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Hudd+St,+Bowen+Hills+QLD&hl=en&ll=-27.445839,153.036643&spn=0.002471,0.006866&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=40.257673,79.013672&vpsrc=6&hnear=Hudd+St,+Bowen+Hills+Queensland+4006&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=-27.445825,153.036549&panoid=-tZIqGuW9iEXH1d4z8WV7A&cbp=12,101.35,,0,11.46

The drawback is that the street to get back onto Campbell St is very narrow and I don't think it can be used by heavy traffic.

A second option is to remove part of the carpark and turn that into a bus turnaround/bus stop that's next to Bowen Hills station (I'm assuming this is currently owned by QR?).

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Hudd+St,+Bowen+Hills+QLD&hl=en&ll=-27.445901,153.037099&spn=0.002471,0.006866&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=40.257673,79.013672&vpsrc=6&hnear=Hudd+St,+Bowen+Hills+Queensland+4006&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=-27.445891,153.037014&panoid=ZzQ1jufRo-6gWPu8bIbQBA&cbp=12,61.97,,0,5.62

The drawback is that you do lose some carparking spaces, but perhaps this could be relocated elsewhere?

Another suggestion is to relocate the current inbound bus stop on Abbotsford Rd and partner it up better with the current outbound stop, allowing just enough turnout space for it to get into the correct lane to turn right at Campbell St.  The drawback to this is that for passengers, crossing Abbotsford Rd can be dodgy at times, and you would probably need to cross at the lights at the top of the road and walk back to get to the stop.

[STB]

What you should really be asking is what could be done to improve the interchange at Bowen Hills,

EDIT: I'd think most people heading to RB&WH from the northern train lines would use the 370/375/379 services to interchange at Fortitude Valley.  Are you saying this is not so?

There are some people who do that already but traffic wise it can take some time to get up there, compared with catching the 393.  Keep in mind too that there are passengers who do catch the 393 between Bowen Hills and RBWH to access the local businesses in that area as well, it's not just a link between RBWH and Bowen Hills only.

[somebody]

I did think about the Hudd St possibility, but I'm not too convinced of it because:
(a) doesn't allow through running - Edgar(?) St is left in, left out unless I'm mistaken.
(b) I'd be surprised if Jamieson St was negotiable by buses - perhaps it can be straightened/widened?
(c) A bus stop on Hudd St, westbound probably cannot be done with all the driveways

Perhaps removing a couple of car parks on the northbound street, and widening the turn may make this work.  I'm not sure.

I'm not too worried about people using it for the businesses along the way - I make it 834m between Bowen Hills Station and RB&WH.  Pretty hard to have too long a work there.  I'm surprised anyone bothers.

[STB]

I did think about the Hudd St possibility, but I'm not too convinced of it because:
(a) doesn't allow through running - Edgar(?) St is left in, left out unless I'm mistaken.
(b) I'd be surprised if Jamieson St was negotiable by buses - perhaps it can be straightened/widened?
(c) A bus stop on Hudd St, westbound probably cannot be done with all the driveways

Perhaps removing a couple of car parks on the northbound street, and widening the turn may make this work.  I'm not sure.

I'm not too worried about people using it for the businesses along the way - I make it 834m between Bowen Hills Station and RB&WH.  Pretty hard to have too long a work there.  I'm surprised anyone bothers.

I was thinking with the second option of removing some of that car parking space (assumed to be owned by QR) and turned into a bus turnaround/bus stop that it would be a two way route along Hudd St.  Ie: come down Hudd St, turns into the bus turnaround, then heads back onto Hudd St/Mayne Rd (the way it came from), as then you would avoid using Jamieson St etc, which would be the safe way as it is quite narrow and I don't think that heavy vehicles should be using it.

[somebody]

That looks to be pretty hard, but not impossible.

[somebody]

Added option for Hudd St turnaround

[Golliwog]

But is there a need for a bus every 5 minutes in peak between Bowen Hills and RBWH? If this plan is about increasing capacity between Roma St and RBWH then whats wrong with the previously suggested plan of extending the 111/222?

Would this service be better provided by just extending the 66 (either permanently, or selected runs) rather than having a whole extra route?

[somebody]

But is there a need for a bus every 5 minutes in peak between Bowen Hills and RBWH? If this plan is about increasing capacity between Roma St and RBWH then whats wrong with the previously suggested plan of extending the 111/222?

Would this service be better provided by just extending the 66 (either permanently, or selected runs) rather than having a whole extra route?

Indeed, if such a route was running every 5 minutes peak, 15 minutes off peak, then the need for the 66 appears to be removed.  It would be far more efficient than the 66 IMO.

[STB]

But is there a need for a bus every 5 minutes in peak between Bowen Hills and RBWH? If this plan is about increasing capacity between Roma St and RBWH then whats wrong with the previously suggested plan of extending the 111/222?

Would this service be better provided by just extending the 66 (either permanently, or selected runs) rather than having a whole extra route?

It's more to do with spreading the load, rather than having them all going to Roma Street, those from the north can change at Bowen Hills and those heading south and east go via Roma Street.

[somebody]

One more thing, the 334, 335, 346, 353 should be removed from Gotha St (I/B) and use Warner St instead.  If it's a via Valley route, it should actually properly serve the Valley.  Obviously, moving from stop 212 to 211 is a no brainer.  Perhaps a few 66 trips would still be required, especially in the PM peak when QUT KG is getting two way traffic.

[somebody]

But is there a need for a bus every 5 minutes in peak between Bowen Hills and RBWH? If this plan is about increasing capacity between Roma St and RBWH then whats wrong with the previously suggested plan of extending the 111/222?

Would this service be better provided by just extending the 66 (either permanently, or selected runs) rather than having a whole extra route?

It's more to do with spreading the load, rather than having them all going to Roma Street, those from the north can change at Bowen Hills and those heading south and east go via Roma Street.

Current Bowen Hills interchange arrangements are adequate heading towards Teneriffe, but pretty ordinary in the other direction.  I am loath to have this continue.  Hence, if we are to have Bowen Hills as the connection (which does have advantages), they should upgrade the interchange at Bowen Hills.

It's just that I think that Fortitude Valley has a set up which is fine as is.

While what I am proposing would be a far more efficient set up re: 66+393 than present, it isn't really the major issue for the network as a whole.  If the service is provided, efficiently or inefficiently it is probably good enough.

[Golliwog]

Whats wrong with the current 66 service (other than it's full)? My understanding is it should actually be a good service as it serves Gabba to CBD, and CBD to RBWH in the one trip meaning the one bus can fill up and empty more than once in the one trip. Cutting the service at Roma St would remove this from the route.

[STB]

Whats wrong with the current 66 service (other than it's full)? My understanding is it should actually be a good service as it serves Gabba to CBD, and CBD to RBWH in the one trip meaning the one bus can fill up and empty more than once in the one trip. Cutting the service at Roma St would remove this from the route.

What's wrong?  The 393 runs empty past QUT KG (heading inbound), leaving up to 50-100+ students waiting for a bus to turn up to take them back to Roma Street station and unfortunately the 66, 330, 333, and 340 aren't cutting it to keep up with demand, that is they are already loaded, some already nearly at capacity by the time they reach QUT KG.  I've waited up to 30mins one time just to get on board a bus back to Roma Street station, as the students just kept streaming in from the uni and every bus that came along wasn't able to take the loads.

And a while back, a significant figure from TransLink and QR had their staff left behind as we crowded onto a packed to the brim 66, and this was in the middle of the day towards the end of semester!  There were at least another 50+ students waiting on the platform where hopefully the next bus or two, or three were able to take them, minus the 393 of course as that doesn't take you to where the majority goes, ie: Roma Street!

On the outbound (to QUT KG) it can be just as bad.  By the time the 333, 340, 330 or 66 reach Roma Street, particularly in the peak, there can be hundreds of passengers waiting on the platform at Roma Street and not all of them will be able to board any of those routes.  I caught the 66 one time and we were standing room only by the time we left KGSBS, again in the middle of the day.  You can imagine what it was like by the time we left Roma Street station.

[somebody]

Whats wrong with the current 66 service (other than it's full)? My understanding is it should actually be a good service as it serves Gabba to CBD, and CBD to RBWH in the one trip meaning the one bus can fill up and empty more than once in the one trip. Cutting the service at Roma St would remove this from the route.

In addition to what STB said, I think there needs to be a reasonable connection from the northern train lines to QUT KG & RCH, rather than making these people loop around via Roma St.  The current 393 is both too infrequent especially in peak, but also has a poor interchange heading west.

Another limitation of the 66 is that it is largely carrying air in the AM peak from RB&WH to Roma St - although a few may interchange onto it from 341/334/346/353/370/379 at RB&WH. 331/332/375 also but these have alternate routes in peak which serve QUT KG.

Further point is that the 393 not using Skyring Tce seems a bit dumb.  You'd only really miss one stop on Wickham St, with the next stop not too far away.  But it's always been done that way! - like before Skyring Tce was built.

[somebody]

One more point.  This could be combined with my proposed New Farm-Valley route.  I can't see that route running every 5 minutes in peak though, so might need to be two routes.

[Golliwog]

My point with the 66 though was that rather than having 2 routes (66 and 393), scrap the 393, put it's buses into the 66 then have say every second 66 extended from RBWH to Bowen Hills (or whatever frequency is required, all of them if that's what is justified). Yes extending the 393 would get passengers to Roma St, but there are plenty I'm sure who use whichever bus they get to get to CC and beyond, so a Roma St terminator helps them little (though by then they can probably fit on a 66/333/etc or 111/222).

I understand the there are capacity issues with the 66, but if you're already talking about cutting the 393 back to Bowen Hills station, then why keep it at all? I think this should be tied with extending the 111 or 222 to RBWH as well.

[somebody]

My point with the 66 though was that rather than having 2 routes (66 and 393), scrap the 393, put it's buses into the 66 then have say every second 66 extended from RBWH to Bowen Hills (or whatever frequency is required, all of them if that's what is justified). Yes extending the 393 would get passengers to Roma St, but there are plenty I'm sure who use whichever bus they get to get to CC and beyond, so a Roma St terminator helps them little (though by then they can probably fit on a 66/333/etc or 111/222).

I understand the there are capacity issues with the 66, but if you're already talking about cutting the 393 back to Bowen Hills station, then why keep it at all? I think this should be tied with extending the 111 or 222 to RBWH as well.

Equally, you could just re-extend the 393 to Roma St at that end and cut it back to Bowen Hills in the other direction.  That's better (IMO) than having two quite different routes with the same number.  Also, I would presume that the 66s would need to head to the Gabba.  I'm not a big fan of extra service Roma St-Gabba.

You may differ.

[STB]

Just as an FYI, I had to go to uni today for a meeting and on my way back I decided to have a go at catching the 393 (depart 4:28pm ex QUT KG) to Bowen Hills, just to see what's happening on that service.  Obviously that doesn't represent the patronage overall, but it was interesting nevertheless to see what on that particular trip occurred.

From QUT KG - 2 boarded
RBWH - 9 boarded
Bowen Hills Station - 4 disembarked - the rest continued onwards towards Teneriffe.  Also noted about 15 pax waiting at the Bowen Hills outbound stop (outside the station entrance) waiting for other services.

Details of my trip from my Go Card:

07-Nov-11 04:37:55 PM   Touch off   'Bowen Hills' Abbotsford Road [BT010920]    -1.33   *
07-Nov-11 04:28:36 PM   Touch on   'QUT Kelvin Grove' Station (IB) - Platform 1 [BT000884]

[somebody]

Interesting.  7 people using it beyond Bowen Hills is more than what I thought would.  Does that justify the service?  It is an easy interchange at Fortitude Valley for the Glider from the 37x.

I might head down there sometime this week just to have a look.

[STB]

Interesting.  7 people using it beyond Bowen Hills is more than what I thought would.  Does that justify the service?  It is an easy interchange at Fortitude Valley for the Glider from the 37x.

I might head down there sometime this week just to have a look.

It's more than I thought as well.  I'm thinking of going for a few rides on it over the next week or so after work on Wednesdays and Thursdays to get a clearer idea on the gist of the patronage.  Unfortunately I won't be able to do it next Monday as the weekly meeting has been moved to Gardens Point campus for next week, the week after though it should be back at Kelvin Grove.

[Golliwog]

My point with the 66 though was that rather than having 2 routes (66 and 393), scrap the 393, put it's buses into the 66 then have say every second 66 extended from RBWH to Bowen Hills (or whatever frequency is required, all of them if that's what is justified). Yes extending the 393 would get passengers to Roma St, but there are plenty I'm sure who use whichever bus they get to get to CC and beyond, so a Roma St terminator helps them little (though by then they can probably fit on a 66/333/etc or 111/222).

I understand the there are capacity issues with the 66, but if you're already talking about cutting the 393 back to Bowen Hills station, then why keep it at all? I think this should be tied with extending the 111 or 222 to RBWH as well.

Equally, you could just re-extend the 393 to Roma St at that end and cut it back to Bowen Hills in the other direction.  That's better (IMO) than having two quite different routes with the same number.  Also, I would presume that the 66s would need to head to the Gabba.  I'm not a big fan of extra service Roma St-Gabba.

You may differ.

Well if you extended 111 and 222 to RBWH then you probably wouldn't need to run extra buses on route 66, just extend a couple (or all) to Bowen Hills.

[ozbob]

Went for a ride on  the 393 bus (A246) this morning.  Left Normanby at 7.25am, I was on the only pax until RBWH, + 4 pax and +1 pax Bowen Hills.  Return journey 16 pax, 6 or so on at Tenneriffe SkyRing, rest mainly at Bowen Hills.  Most pax off at RBWH.  I was the only pax onboard on arrival at Normanby at 7.51am

Spoke with a few folks on board.  The 393 is a useful cross suburban run for them, the only thing that really needs to change is run it through to Roma St.  This would then assist greatly with pax loads on the INB.  At the moment it is wasted potential capacity.

[somebody]

Teneriffe Skyring?  Do you mean the ferry wharf?  Officially, the 393 doesn't use Skyring Tce, but I wouldn't be that surprised if an "unofficial" route was used.

It seems it may be justified to keep the connection to the ferry.  Perhaps have a short working to Bowen Hills between every run then.  The current frequency is insufficient to make it attractive to passengers at Bowen Hills.

The stop arrangements at Bowen Hills also require work IMO.

[STB]

Hmm, sounds like there is enough demand to warrant it to continue running between Teneriffe and Bowen Hills.  Might be best to go for an extension to Roma Street or KGSBS and leave the Bowen Hills to Teneriffe section available.  Might be best to get more data to confirm that though.

[ozbob]

Yes, agree there, and once the 393 is running through to Roma St -KGSBS  I think it will have more pax on the Teneriffe - Bowen Hills section.  Locals who do use it love it.  The Normanby truncation though is the issue, rest is fine.

[ozbob]

Teneriffe Skyring?  Do you mean the ferry wharf?  Officially, the 393 doesn't use Skyring Tce, but I wouldn't be that surprised if an "unofficial" route was used.

That is just around the corner from the Ferry Wharf stop.   I noted a number of buses in the ferry terminal bus stop, perhaps the 393 routinely uses the Terneriffe SkyRing stop now.  Driver seemed to think so.  

[somebody]

Yes, agree there, and once the 393 is running through to Roma St -KGSBS  I think it will have more pax on the Teneriffe - Bowen Hills section.  Locals who do use it love it.  The Normanby truncation though is the issue, rest is fine.

I still think there is a need for short workings Roma St-Bowen Hills in between every 393.  15 minute frequency isn't up to scratch for a connection.

[somebody]

Used it last night.  I was the only one getting on at RB&WH, I think 1-2 got off.  2 other passengers on the bus, all remained on the bus to Teneriffe.

The route seems quite slow.  I think that my proposal for an interchange to the CityGlider at Fortitude Valley would not really be much slower RCH-Teneriffe, even with traffic on Bowen Hills Rd and the interchange penalty.  I'll admit that it would be slower for RBH.  Are many taking that option from RBH though?  I'd think the frequency on the 37x + others would make that an option with low utilisation.  In the other direction you have the poor stop arrangements at Bowen Hills as well as the low frequency.

[ozbob]

Media release 13 November 2011

SEQ: Bus route 393, time to put it back on track!

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers repeats calls for the re-extension of route 393.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"In 2008, the 393 bus (1) was truncated from Roma St and Herschel St stop 1 back to Normanby.  This decision has been criticised by observers and users of the Northern Busway alike.  However, for some strange reason it has not been reversed in face of the lack of capacity on the Inner Northern Busway."

"Some RAIL Back On Track Members wonder if a new route for the 393 is an answer (2), but just extending the existing 393 to Roma St would be an immediate improvement and help avoid intending passengers having long waits for an empty bus." 

"Adding additional trips between Roma Street and Bowen Hills via the busway would also be an advantage, as it would increase the frequency enough to allow for interchange between the northern train lines and the northern busway destinations." 

"The 393 bus needs immediate re-extension. It would be well utilised route."

References:

1. http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/110606-393.pdf

2. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6999.0

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[dwb]

Re: 111/66/222 ext or 393 ext, what about instead having one inner city loop:

KGS, Roma, Normanby, QUT, RCH, Valley, Kangaroo Point (via Story Bridge), Woolloongabba, Mater, South Bank, Cultural Centre...->

ed. bold

[somebody]

Re: 111/66/222 ext or 393 ext, what about instead having one inner city loop:

KGS, Roma, Normanby, QUT, RCH, Valley, Kangaroo Point (via Story Bridge), Woolloongabba, Mater, South Bank, Cultural Centre...->

Interesting suggestion.  Instead of entering the busway though, why not take over the 475/476 Valley-PA Hospital service?

I'd chop KGS, of course.

[dwb]

Interesting suggestion.  Instead of entering the busway though, why not take over the 475/476 Valley-PA Hospital service?

I'd chop KGS, of course.

Do you mean enter the busway at PAH then skip Gabba, serve Mater, South Bank, Cultural go through but not serve KGS, Roma St?

Wouldn't it make the loop a bit longer than it needs to be, and possibly reduce the ability to use Gabba as a good interchange point...

Actually come to think of it, then a bunch of southern routes could possibly use PAH as an interchange point... Although I'm not suggesting any interchanges need to be forced, yet, I'm just saying it might open up some opportunities, and I think that some (whatever it is) inner city (but not CBD only) loop is required.

[somebody]

Interesting suggestion.  Instead of entering the busway though, why not take over the 475/476 Valley-PA Hospital service?

I'd chop KGS, of course.

Do you mean enter the busway at PAH then skip Gabba, serve Mater, South Bank, Cultural go through but not serve KGS, Roma St?

Wouldn't it make the loop a bit longer than it needs to be, and possibly reduce the ability to use Gabba as a good interchange point...

Actually come to think of it, then a bunch of southern routes could possibly use PAH as an interchange point... Although I'm not suggesting any interchanges need to be forced, yet, I'm just saying it might open up some opportunities, and I think that some (whatever it is) inner city (but not CBD only) loop is required.

No, I was thinking Roma St-Normanby-QUT KG-RCH-Valley-Main St-PA Hospital

[STB]

Interesting suggestion.  Instead of entering the busway though, why not take over the 475/476 Valley-PA Hospital service?

I'd chop KGS, of course.

Do you mean enter the busway at PAH then skip Gabba, serve Mater, South Bank, Cultural go through but not serve KGS, Roma St?

Wouldn't it make the loop a bit longer than it needs to be, and possibly reduce the ability to use Gabba as a good interchange point...

Actually come to think of it, then a bunch of southern routes could possibly use PAH as an interchange point... Although I'm not suggesting any interchanges need to be forced, yet, I'm just saying it might open up some opportunities, and I think that some (whatever it is) inner city (but not CBD only) loop is required.

No, I was thinking Roma St-Normanby-QUT KG-RCH-Valley-Main St-PA Hospital

What about those between Teneriffe and RBWH where based on observations recently there are a lot more using it than we first thought?

[somebody]

^ Yes, there is a need to have a single route with an adequate frequency to allow for interchange.  Perhaps there would be merit in a Tenerriffe direct route (rather via Bowen Hills) as well as the Valley Route, but probably not.  There would need to be much improved take up of the connection opportunities before this could be justified.

Anyway, I was really just meaning to tweak dwb's suggestion.

Personally, I don't think it makes much difference if it is a Fortitude Valley interchange or a Bowen Hills interchange.  But the current set up is inadequate.

[Golliwog]

I still don't like the "just extend the 393 to Roma St" plan it does very little, if anything for people trying to get beyond Roma St (KGS, CC, and beyond). That why for capacity issues between RBWH and Roma St I favour extending the 111 or 222 northward. I'd actually like to see the 393 scrapped with the 66 being extended (part time or fulltime as is deemed necessary) to cover at least to Bowen Hills, if not on to Tenneriffe.

[somebody]

It does a heap for them.  If the 393 is extended full buses will be the exception rather than the norm IMO.  That will mean they can actually get on the next 330/333/340/66 heading south during the day.