BUZ 10 minute peak frequency

[somebody]

I might incur some ire here.

I think this part of the standard is regressive.  TL/BT believe that 5 minute headways are too tight for stops in QSBS (except A8 for some reason).  Requiring all BUZes leaving from here to run every 10 minutes means that the 207 to Carina via Old Cleveland Rd (for example) can't leave from stop A3 (where the 200 leaves from).  Similarly, two of the 129/131/137/141 should leave from A6 & A7.

Another angle is that it reduces the ability to have a peak special from Moggill to UQ Chancellors Place.

There are numerous other examples.

[Mr X]

I don't understand. What if you lived along a stretch of a BUZ route that isn't serviced by a peak express? Isn't the point of a BUZ to have a base level peak and offpeak frequency? 

[somebody]

I don't understand. What if you lived along a stretch of a BUZ route that isn't serviced by a peak express? Isn't the point of a BUZ to have a base level peak and offpeak frequency? 

What if frequency is reduced to 15 minutes at peak on the BUZ routes?
444 - only Indooroopilly school is of any concern here.  Otherwise run more 443s.
412 - could continue to run at 10 minute peak frequency
385 - run more 382, 383, 374 services
345 - run more 343 services.  Inner part is also served by the 351, 357, 359 services.
333 - could continue at 10 minute peak frequency.  If not, running more 332 services might be liked in the AM.
222 - *cough*
200 - run more 201 and 207 services
199 - continue at 5 minute peak frequency
196 - run more 195s but continue at high frequency for the West End side
180 - run more 179s (perhaps 181s)
150 - run more 153 and 157s
140 - run more 141 and 137s
130 - run more 129 and 137s
120 - run more 119s
100 - run more 118 and 103s

Get the idea?  Those heading to South Bank can either wait up to 14 minutes, or interchange to somewhere they can pick up the peak time route.  Of course, the major problem with all this is the city stop locations, which need to be addressed for the above to succeed.

[Mr X]

If frequency is reduced to offpeak levels then that really reduces the faith in the BUZ brand imho. Having "bus every 10 mins.. with exceptions" makes it meaningless imho, and a bus every 15mins in peak hour I don't think is up to scratch as a "high frequency no timetable needed" standard!
Instead, I'd support amalgamating some of these peak hour expresses with their BUZ equivalent by sending some BUZes via the Captain Cook Bridge.

[#Metro]

Don't touch the BUZ!

I could catch all sorts of rockets in the morning but with BUZ i know where I'm going.

[Mr X]

Re the 130 and 150- they are chockers in peak hour and replacing them with the 137 (which terminates at Sunnybank IIRC) would be an inadequate service for those further along the route.

[somebody]

If frequency is reduced to offpeak levels then that really reduces the faith in the BUZ brand imho. Having "bus every 10 mins.. with exceptions" makes it meaningless imho, and a bus every 15mins in peak hour I don't think is up to scratch as a "high frequency no timetable needed" standard!
Instead, I'd support amalgamating some of these peak hour expresses with their BUZ equivalent by sending some BUZes via the Captain Cook Bridge.

Most of our train network would need to be upgraded to reach 15 minute frequency.  It would be a simpler definition than the current one, which implies in its definition that 15 minute frequency isn't really "no timetable needed".

Anyway, I just wanted to put it out there.

[Mr X]

  what's the train network got to do with it?

[somebody]

what's the train network got to do with it?

If it's good enough for users of one mode why isn't it good enough for users of another.  Anyway, in practice no one would need to wait 14 minutes (ignoring congestion) as there would be a peak special with tighter spacing than that.

[Mr X]

I don't understand. What if you lived along a stretch of a BUZ route that isn't serviced by a peak express? Isn't the point of a BUZ to have a base level peak and offpeak frequency?  

What if frequency is reduced to 15 minutes at peak on the BUZ routes?
444 - only Indooroopilly school is of any concern here.  Otherwise run more 443s.
412 - could continue to run at 10 minute peak frequency
385 - run more 382, 383, 374 services
345 - run more 343 services.  Inner part is also served by the 351, 357, 359 services.
333 - could continue at 10 minute peak frequency.  If not, running more 332 services might be liked in the AM.
222 - *cough*
200 - run more 201 and 207 services
199 - continue at 5 minute peak frequency
196 - run more 195s but continue at high frequency for the West End side
180 - run more 179s (perhaps 181s)
150 - run more 153 and 157s
140 - run more 141 and 137s
130 - run more 129 and 137s
120 - run more 119s
100 - run more 118 and 103s

Get the idea?  Those heading to South Bank can either wait up to 14 minutes, or interchange to somewhere they can pick up the peak time route.  Of course, the major problem with all this is the city stop locations, which need to be addressed for the above to succeed.

Let's see, for these routes to be adequate replacements:
444.. 443 is doable
385... 374 terminates at Paddington, 382 possible, 383 doesn't serve the 385 route at all after Payne Rd
345.. 343 is doable, but what about those along Kelvin Grove Rd?
200... should run via the expressway and Chatsworth Rd
196.. 195 doesn't even service West End at all, unless you advocate extending it to Fairfield? Or should the 196s terminate in the city  
180... 179 is doable, though it would be nice if these routes were merged and sent via the Capt Ck Br
150... no. I have contacts who use the 150 and can verify that in peak hour, you can wait for 3-4 buses to go by before you can even get a seat. Reducing the frequency of that one would be terrible.
140 and 130... 137 terminates at Sunnybank!! What about those further along who use the 130? Like with the 150, reducing the frequency of this one would be terrible as well. 141.. possible.
120... What about the students at Griffith going to Garden City? uni lectures can end in peak.
100.. 103 doesn't even service the city and 118 skips most of the 100 route!

Most of these issues can be fixed simply by having consistent, legible city bus stop locations. Peak expresses have their purpose but you really shouldn't be playing with fire and forcing people who can't use them to use them!

[Jonno]

what's the train network got to do with it?

If it's good enough for users of one mode why isn't it good enough for users of another.  Anyway, in practice no one would need to wait 14 minutes (ignoring congestion) as there would be a peak special with tighter spacing than that.

15 mins is not good enough for our train network in peak.  It should be the same frequency as BUZ but unfortunately due to ignorant planning there are severe limitations on our train network.

Our bus routes need to be rationalized to operate like a train line in Bus Lanes, networked (yes that means interchanges) and all BUZed.

[dwb]

I don't understand. What if you lived along a stretch of a BUZ route that isn't serviced by a peak express? Isn't the point of a BUZ to have a base level peak and offpeak frequency? 

What if frequency is reduced to 15 minutes at peak on the BUZ routes?
385 - run more 382, 383, 374 services

Ummmm I for one say no to this.... for a number of reasons the first being it's against customer behaviours... why do you desire to try and kill BUZ lightyear?... or am I missing some sarcasm???

[somebody]

Ummmm I for one say no to this.... for a number of reasons the first being it's against customer behaviours... why do you desire to try and kill BUZ lightyear?... or am I missing some sarcasm???

No sarcasm.

I knew you wouldn't agree with this.  But what do you mean about being against customer behaviours?  I think the main behaviour is that they don't want to use a route which is slow. There is a factor of not knowing where it goes too.

Re: people don't know where it goes
I presume this is mostly talking about I/B.  Can you say improve destination displays?  "City" doesn't cut it. Additionally, the Ann St route is (I presume) unnecessarily slow, hence I've suggested using QSBS B previously.

385... 374 terminates at Paddington, 382 possible, 383 doesn't serve the 385 route at all after Payne Rd

So what?  383 is useful for those from Cooper Camp to Payne Rd.  There is an issue in that only the 385 is useful beyond Settlement Rd though.  I think its OK.

345.. 343 is doable, but what about those along Kelvin Grove Rd?

Already answered  351/357/359 are running frequently.

196.. 195 doesn't even service West End at all, unless you advocate extending it to Fairfield? Or should the 196s terminate in the city 

Again, I already said 196/199 keep running at high frequency through West End.

150... no. I have contacts who use the 150 and can verify that in peak hour, you can wait for 3-4 buses to go by before you can even get a seat. Reducing the frequency of that one would be terrible.

Hmm.  Increased 157s (and 153) as I suggested should prevent this, although there is lower connectivity (i.e. doesn't serve Griffith Uni as well as Mater/Sth B/CC).  In the AM, high frequency seems OK to me, but I still think 157 OR 156 should be doing the bulk of the people carrying.  In the PM, maybe more CC starters, which have been added, I think starting last year.

140 and 130... 137 terminates at Sunnybank!! What about those further along who use the 130? Like with the 150, reducing the frequency of this one would be terrible as well. 141.. possible.

Again, already answered.  I said increased 141/129 services to cover!

120... What about the students at Griffith going to Garden City? uni lectures can end in peak.

If this is a real issue, the 119 could be re-extended to serve Garden City.

100.. 103 doesn't even service the city and 118 skips most of the 100 route!

Requires the 103 extension along College Ave as we have recently suggested.  Mightn't serve the city, but using the train from Darra gets you out of the traffic.

Most of these issues can be fixed simply by having consistent, legible city bus stop locations.

A big +1 to this.

This is really the major reason to do what I suggested in the OP.

[dwb]

I don't see why you have to destroy the usefulness and capacity of BUZ routes to simplify and improve non-BUZ routes.

People choose BUZ for a number of reasons, and there is a clear and strong customer preference for BUZ over the multitude of other routes available. What we should be doing is cutting down the other routes and using BUZ more as our "rail" network where we don't have any rail.

That means simple direct routes (probably with limited stops) that run all day, at a high frequency (15mins is absolutely lowest standard for this off peak), that are easily understood and make it easy to just hop on an unfamiliar route.

[somebody]

I don't see why you have to destroy the usefulness and capacity of BUZ routes to simplify and improve non-BUZ routes.

People choose BUZ for a number of reasons, and there is a clear and strong customer preference for BUZ over the multitude of other routes available. What we should be doing is cutting down the other routes and using BUZ more as our "rail" network where we don't have any rail.

That means simple direct routes (probably with limited stops) that run all day, at a high frequency (15mins is absolutely lowest standard for this off peak), that are easily understood and make it easy to just hop on an unfamiliar route.

Cultural Centre capacity is a large problem with your argument.  Similarly expecting buses and passengers to take the deviation via South Bank in peak hour adds cost and reduces the attractiveness of the service.

Services actually are less sensitive to frequency in the peak.  People use PT in peak for priority and to avoid the need to park.  These reasons apply much less off peak.

I could just as easily apply your argument in reverse: you don't need to destroy the usefulness of the peak hour rockets to improve the statistics of BUZ.

[somebody]

Further, I really don't think BUZ is about peak hour.  119/120 for example were already at the BUZ level (10 min frequency) in peak prior to the BUZifications, 330 already is, and 331 in the mornings.  The same probably already applied to the 180 also.  I'm sure if you looked you could find other peak routes with 10 minute frequency which aren't on a BUZ corridor.

EDIT: Checked the old 100 timetable, and it had 10 minute frequency from 6:40am-7:50am departing Forest Lake (arriving QSBS 7:48am - 8:58am)
and from 16:15 to 18:15 leaving QSBS.  Link: http://web.archive.org/web/20110219131830/http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/101004_100,N100,110,115,118.pdf

[somebody]

what's the train network got to do with it?

If it's good enough for users of one mode why isn't it good enough for users of another.  Anyway, in practice no one would need to wait 14 minutes (ignoring congestion) as there would be a peak special with tighter spacing than that.

15 mins is not good enough for our train network in peak.  It should be the same frequency as BUZ but unfortunately due to ignorant planning there are severe limitations on our train network.

Our bus routes need to be rationalized to operate like a train line in Bus Lanes, networked (yes that means interchanges) and all BUZed.

Be that as it may, little can be done in a pre CRR to have a better than 15 minute service for a large portion of our train network.

Besides, I'm not really suggesting that the SERVICE should be less frequent than 10 minutes, just individual routes which comprise a portion of the service.

[AnonymouslyBad]

I think 10 minutes is fine. There's still some increased patronage in peak on the BUZ corridors specifically. If services were required to be increased three or four fold then that would raise other issues, but 10 minutes is not exactly high frequency by peak hour standards. The minor increase from 15 minutes to 10 minutes isn't going to destroy the value of rockets.

Most BUZes actually run far more often than 10 minutes currently, and could probably do with being cut back (mostly to ensure efficient use of the inner city stops) and replaced by rockets. But I don't really think we need to go so far as making it 15 minutes all day. Plenty of people do actually want to catch the BUZ, even if there's a rocket etc. that's faster.

(FWIW, I think Translink's definition of high frequency no longer requires 10 minutes in peak.)

[somebody]

Plenty of people do actually want to catch the BUZ, even if there's a rocket etc. that's faster.

Why is this?  Do you mean because they are heading to South Bank, for example (a valid reason) or just because of the city stop locations? (a problem)

[Golliwog]

I think it doesn't help the rockets having a poor timetable in some (if not all) cases. In the AM, the 382 only runs at 6.38, 7.06 and 7.58 and the 383 only comes at 6.44, 7.17 and 7.54. At the same time, the 385 is coming every 10 minutes. The P384 is also coming every 15 minutes. I'd much rather plan around using the 385 than one of those. Though when I use buses in The Gap to the city, I'll catch anything that's heading that way. Outbound I'm usually at the CC (coming from UQ Lakes) so just get the 385.

[dwb]

I could just as easily apply your argument in reverse: you don't need to destroy the usefulness of the peak hour rockets to improve the statistics of BUZ.

Rationalisation is integral to the network, we don't need to get rid of all rockets but something should be done generally about the confused mess that is the extensive variation of cityxpress, rockets, shuttles and prepaids.

[dwb]

Cultural Centre capacity is a large problem with your argument.  Similarly expecting buses and passengers to take the deviation via South Bank in peak hour adds cost and reduces the attractiveness of the service.

Services actually are less sensitive to frequency in the peak.  People use PT in peak for priority and to avoid the need to park.  These reasons apply much less off peak.

There are many other ways to address bus crowding at CCB than reducing BUZ... for example keeping only BUZ in there and pushing ALL rockets/expresses via Captain Cook Bridge.

Further, frequency IS important in peak, I watch it every day... the bulk of passengers choose 385 over 374 for example... even on inbound, why bc it is one route that they can just get and not worry about knowing if the route has changed, where it stops, etc etc. They just get it whenever they need a bus because it is easily understood, it goes where they need and it stops at major destinations, but not every stop (excluding 196/9) along the way.

It is a proven recipe for success, you might be philosophically against it but that is little wonder given your clear focus on peak hour peak direction CBD bound ONLY customers present in basically all you thinking. PT needs to be responsive to people, not the other way around!

[#Metro]

I think that BUZ and Rockets can work together. Think about it carefully.
We might be able to get higher capacity and higher speed out of this idea by introducing semi-forced interchange.

Let's say you have a situation where you have a BUZ and a rocket approaching a busway.

A core busway service operates to all stations (let this be route 111 and 160 and UQ services).
Rockets and bullets would enter the busway and stop at the first station they touched to allow pax to transfer to the core all-stops service.

The rockets and bullets would then continue non-stop, running express through all further busway
stations without stopping. Because the frequency is so high on the busway, interchange should be a non-issue
but ALL DOOR BOARDING will be important.

Pattern:

--------|-----------|-------------|---------|--------------|------->  City BUZ
--------|---------------------------------------------------------->  Rocket/Bullet
                             ---------|---------------------------------> Rocket/Bullet

This speeds up all bullet services significantly and also allows air to be expelled from the
bullet and rocket buses.

[dwb]

I think that BUZ and Rockets can work together. Think about it carefully.
We might be able to get higher capacity and higher speed out of this idea by introducing semi-forced interchange.

Let's say you have a situation where you have a BUZ and a rocket approaching a busway.

A core busway service operates to all stations (let this be route 111 and 160 and UQ services).
Rockets and bullets would enter the busway and stop at the first station they touched to allow pax to transfer to the core all-stops service.

The rockets and bullets would then continue non-stop, running express through all further busway
stations without stopping. Because the frequency is so high on the busway, interchange should be a non-issue
but ALL DOOR BOARDING will be important.

Pattern:

--------|-----------|-------------|---------|--------------|------->  City BUZ
--------|---------------------------------------------------------->  Rocket/Bullet
                             ---------|---------------------------------> Rocket/Bullet

This speeds up all bullet services significantly and also allows air to be expelled from the
bullet and rocket buses.

Continues to reinforce the notion that ALL customers are going to the CBD only, which is not true. Lots of people are getting OFF at Mater, South Bank or Cultural Centre.

[somebody]

Cultural Centre capacity is a large problem with your argument.  Similarly expecting buses and passengers to take the deviation via South Bank in peak hour adds cost and reduces the attractiveness of the service.

Services actually are less sensitive to frequency in the peak.  People use PT in peak for priority and to avoid the need to park.  These reasons apply much less off peak.

There are many other ways to address bus crowding at CCB than reducing BUZ... for example keeping only BUZ in there and pushing ALL rockets/expresses via Captain Cook Bridge.

Further, frequency IS important in peak, I watch it every day... the bulk of passengers choose 385 over 374 for example... even on inbound, why bc it is one route that they can just get and not worry about knowing if the route has changed, where it stops, etc etc. They just get it whenever they need a bus because it is easily understood, it goes where they need and it stops at major destinations, but not every stop (excluding 196/9) along the way.

It is a proven recipe for success, you might be philosophically against it but that is little wonder given your clear focus on peak hour peak direction CBD bound ONLY customers present in basically all you thinking. PT needs to be responsive to people, not the other way around!

You keep citing the 374 example but it is not at all clear that it is underutilised for the reason you are suggesting.  North Quay is likely the problem in the AM / city stop locations in the PM.  443 performs pretty well - I see it pass my place with good loads.  I expect the 195 does pretty well also.  Pretty sure I've observed the P157 with good loads also, while the 156 has poor loads in the PM.

As for your other comments, yes I do think BUZ has merit, but it is only certain parts of the formula which have merit, particularly the no compromise timetable and operating hours.  The former Cultural Centre routing requirement, for example, was largely wasteful.

[#Metro]

Continues to reinforce the notion that ALL customers are going to the CBD only, which is not true. Lots of people are getting OFF at Mater, South Bank or Cultural Centre.

No it doesn't. Don't all rockets travel by the Captain Cook Bridge anyway already? People on rockets change at Buranda for a core busway service already.

Once a rocket bus touches the first busway station, anybody for Mater Hill, South Bank or CC just interchanges to 111. The rocket bus is then free to pick up passengers from the 111 who don't want to stop at other intermediate stops, and the all stops BUZ picks up those headed for Mater Hill, CC or South Bank. After exchanging passengers there is now no need for the rocket bus to stop at any other busway stations. Why? Because anybody who wanted an intermediate stop would have got out and changed.

So everyone gets to go where they need to go, and we just sped up the rocket buses massively.

I think this type of pattern is called Local/Express or Zone operation.

[#Metro]

You keep citing the 374 example but it is not at all clear that it is underutilised for the reason you are suggesting.  North Quay is likely the problem in the AM / city stop locations in the PM.  443 performs pretty well - I see it pass my place with good loads.  I expect the 195 does pretty well also.  Pretty sure I've observed the P157 with good loads also, while the 156 has poor loads in the PM.

As for your other comments, yes I do think BUZ has merit, but it is only certain parts of the formula which have merit, particularly the no compromise timetable and operating hours.  The former Cultural Centre routing requirement, for example, was largely wasteful.

Let's think of it like a multiple-tier system.
I think that the BUZ should form the core. Rocket services should be faster but complimentary to BUZ.
So for the Western suburbs this would mean that once a rocket bus gets to Indooroopilly, NO STOPPING until Toowong and then NO STOPPING until you get to
either a busway station or the CBD.

--------|----------------|------------------|--------------|------------------|---------> BUZ (Every 2-5 minutes in peak, arctics)
      indro               moggil rd        toowong      coronation Dr         city
-------|-----EXPRESS---------------------|-------------EXPRESS----------|---------> ROCKET (Every 2-5 minutes in peak, arctics)

Passengers for intermediate stops interchange at indro or toowong. This allows the Rocket Bus to speed all the way to the CBD with only two stops- A huge increase in speed.

[somebody]

There are many other ways to address bus crowding at CCB than reducing BUZ... for example keeping only BUZ in there and pushing ALL rockets/expresses via Captain Cook Bridge.

Please explain.  Rockets already use the CC Bridge, except those which use the Storey Bridge.

In peak hour, there are few expresses through South Bank - 110, 115, 135, 170, 214, 250, 270 are about the only ones I can think of.  Perhaps you count the 160.  These routes aren't particularly frequent either.

It is a proven recipe for success, you might be philosophically against it but that is little wonder given your clear focus on peak hour peak direction CBD bound ONLY customers present in basically all you thinking. PT needs to be responsive to people, not the other way around!

You don't see that heading to the city is a major demand for PT to respond to?

[david]

Let's think of it like a multiple-tier system.
I think that the BUZ should form the core. Rocket services should be faster but complimentary to BUZ.
So for the Western suburbs this would mean that once a rocket bus gets to Indooroopilly, NO STOPPING until Toowong and then NO STOPPING until you get to
either a busway station or the CBD.

--------|----------------|------------------|--------------|------------------|---------> BUZ (Every 2-5 minutes in peak, arctics)
      indro               moggil rd        toowong      coronation Dr         city
-------|-----EXPRESS---------------------|-------------EXPRESS----------|---------> ROCKET (Every 2-5 minutes in peak, arctics)

Passengers for intermediate stops interchange at indro or toowong. This allows the Rocket Bus to speed all the way to the CBD with only two stops- A huge increase in speed.

I'll just pick on this example for a moment.
- I'm assuming by Rockets, you're excluding the Milton Rd Rockets?
- Also assuming that the Rockets in this example are the 425/435/443/453/454/460.
- And the BUZes are P88, 444 and 412

In which case, I LOVE it!

There is currently one infrastructure problem though in that Toowong does not allow for such an elaborate set-up. The O/B stop outside the RE hotel is atrocious, the I/B stop in front of Woolies is run-down and tired, and making full use of the 412BUZ is impossible in the way that it is currently set-up.

I'm simply nit-picking for this particular example, but I can see how it could be run very successfully on the South-East/Eastern Busways. It is already actually in practice on the Northside, where the 333 becomes the trunk route and the 330/340 run express Chermside to RBWH.

With the idea of pushing any non-BUZ service onto the Captain Cook Bridge - it's a fantastic idea, but thought needs to be provided on the location of the major interchange point. My recommendation would actually be Woollongabba, for those routes which can, in order to utilise 66 better.

[david]

In terms of dealing with Cultural Centre capacity during PM peak, why not:

- Remove 330/340/345/385 from CCBS in PM peak. (similar set-up to the 4xx where none of them go to CCBS during peak)
- Only run 333/444 to CCBS in PM peak - high-frequency transfers for those who need to go to CCBS during peak.
- Make better use of empty capacity on the 66/222/111 to take those from CCBS to KGSBS, who need to catch the 330/340/385.
- Either the 222 or the 200 via Captain Cook Bridge (200 might be the better option, since it is the longer route and so that the 222 can remain as the "flagship" busway service, similar to the P88/111 set-up)

If a southern BUZ service needs to go via Captain Cook Bridge, maybe the 140? I'm a little hesistant to start suggesting the removal of southern BUZ services from servicing CCBS.

I'm sure there are more that can go, without affecting the quality of the service that is currently being provided. The 160 pops into mind...

[somebody]

- Remove 330/340/345/385 from CCBS in PM peak. (similar set-up to the 4xx where none of them go to CCBS during peak)
- Only run 333/444 to CCBS in PM peak - high-frequency transfers for those who need to go to CCBS during peak.

I believe that my proposal is superior.  It doesn't confuse the routes.

The minor increase from 15 minutes to 10 minutes isn't going to destroy the value of rockets.

I say that it does.  Once you decide that you can't have tighter headways than 7 minutes out of QSBS, that means you can't have a 10 minute frequency BUZ route sharing the same stop with another route.

[Golliwog]

Where is this 7 minute headway coming from?

[Mr X]

^^ Wasn't the 111 every 5mins when it was in QSBS?
I am sure the 130 and 150 operate at that frequency in peak too.

[somebody]

Where is this 7 minute headway coming from?

It's the excuse for moving the 119 & 179 out of QSBS in the PM.  It's not really valid, as HBU points out.