14km/h average speed of 199 requires attention

[somebody]

http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/110829_193,195,196,199,N199.pdf

199 Westbound via Valley is approximately 9.0km map and takes 38 minutes outside of peak according to the timetable, for an average speed of 14km/h
199 Eastbound via Valley it's approximately 9.4km map and takes approximately 43 minutes for an average speed of 13km/h

199 Via Ivory St westbound at a comparable time of day is approximately 8.8km map and takes 34 minutes for an average speed of 16km/h.
199 Via Ivory St eastbound at a comparable time of day is approximately 9.1km map and takes approximately 39 minutes for an average speed of 14km/h

I'm very pessimistic that the timetabled times show the full difference here, especially in peak.  Via Warner St is incredibly slow in my experience.

There is also the stopping pattern of these services through West End.  Having the busiest route on the corridor doing the all stops duty while the less busy CityGlider runs express along Melbourne St is simply inappropriate.  These patterns should be reversed along Melbourne St.

Any comments?

[Golliwog]

How much faster is the City Glider?

[O_128]

199 is dreadfully slow, Make it prepaid for a start, there is an unusual amount of paper buyers on the route. Send all 199s via ivory street with an immediate stop on Brunswick street ( would only be about 100m further north) which is still central. Cut the adelaide dwell. Its a pain to have to sit at the stop for ages ( my longest is 7 min) to get the to the cultural centre. Phase out the older buses as a lot of pram users and elderly use the buses and implement all door boarding.

[Golliwog]

Why is there a dwell in the middle of the route?!?

[somebody]

Why is there a dwell in the middle of the route?!?

Because the timetable is too slack.  I think basically every route has timing points on it somewhere along the way, where the driver is not allowed to leave early.  374 is the only one I can think which might not.

How much faster is the City Glider?

Journey planner reckons 5 minutes vs 7 minutes.

[SurfRail]

Full time via Ivory Street sounds fine.

(I actually think the better solution is to reconfigure Ann Street to get rid of the island stops and allow a kerbside bus lane running opposite to the traffic as far as Brunswick Street for use by both the 196 and 199, so we can get rid of the dogleg and still get patronage from that area, but this is simpler for now.)

[O_128]

Full time via Ivory Street sounds fine.

(I actually think the better solution is to reconfigure Ann Street to get rid of the island stops and allow a kerbside bus lane running opposite to the traffic as far as Brunswick Street for use by both the 196 and 199, so we can get rid of the dogleg and still get patronage from that area, but this is simpler for now.)

Ive thought about that, its a cheap solution though of course politically unviable. "why can't my car go that way?"

[SurfRail]

Full time via Ivory Street sounds fine.

(I actually think the better solution is to reconfigure Ann Street to get rid of the island stops and allow a kerbside bus lane running opposite to the traffic as far as Brunswick Street for use by both the 196 and 199, so we can get rid of the dogleg and still get patronage from that area, but this is simpler for now.)

Ive thought about that, its a cheap solution though of course politically unviable. "why can't my car go that way?"

There is precedent of course - bus lane on Upper Roma Street is the most obvious one I can think of.  That isn't as long, but similarly removed a rather painful dogleg around the barracks.

[Mr X]

On the other hand, the 196 takes 15mins to go the 3km from HBU's stop to the city   around 14 bus stops in that stretch, too. After Dornoch Tce the bus speeds up, so going to Fairfield O/B and I/B from that point is usually pretty quick.

A peak hour service or two in the mornings and evenings I/B skipping West End and turning from Gladstone Rd into Ernest St, left into Merivale St and right into Melbourne would speed it up, for O/B this could go via Cordelia St. It's the route you'd use if you drove. Not sure how justifiable that would be though. In peak, the bus tends to stop at every single stop making it SLOW!!!

[#Metro]

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6068.0

Get out the TransLink Chainsaw! Rip out a few stops!

Solutions:

1. Rip out stops. There are too many and they are too closely spaced (consideration needs to be given to hilly terrain which reduces practical walking distance @ highgate hill though)
2. All door boarding
3. Route 198 is a joke. Steam iron it straight or abolish it.
4.

SEQ: Core Frequent Network - Need for SPEED on BUZ 196 and BUZ 199

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 has welcomed TransLink's latest service improvements to West End - City - New Farm 196 and 199 BUZ services.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"RAIL Back On Track has long argued that the fastest, cheapest way to improve the public transport system in Brisbane is a targeted, selective boost of services to create a Core Frequent Network covering Brisbane with a network of selective trunk, high-capacity, high-frequency, traffic-prioritised workhorse rail, ferry and bus routes (1)."

"The speed of a service is directly related to how closely the stops are spaced (2). The BUZ 196 and 199 have excessively close stop spacing which results in a service that at times is rather slow. For example, there are three 196 bus stops within a stone's throw of each other on Browning street, a street that is only around 700 metres in length! Outside St Ita's school at Dutton park, there are two 196 bus stops within stone's throw distance."

"Some of the bus stop locations are where historical tram stops were.  Time has moved on and it is appropriate for some stop rationalisation to improve efficiency."

"Speed matters and people are willing to walk further to higher speed services. It also means a service that is cheaper to run. RAIL Back On Track suggests TransLink consider widening stop spacings on BUZ 199 and BUZ 196 so that services are faster. For example,  a stop every 500 metres or so will result in a faster service while the distance anyone will have to walk between stops will be 250 metres at the very worst (3). Of course local conditions should also be taken into account and stops should only be removed after a  community consultation process."

"RAIL Back On Track welcomes TransLink's recent upgrades to the Brisbane bus network. We look forward to seeing similar improvements to all day train frequency. Public transport must be fast and frequent!"

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

References:

1. Building a Core Frequent Network
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5173.0

Stop spacing: the endless, thankless, and essential struggle
2. http://www.humantransit.org/2010/03/stop-spacing-the-endless-thankless-and-essential-struggle.html

3. If two bus stops are spaced 500m apart, the point at which a passenger is at maximum distance from both stops
is exactly half way. So 500 divided by two = 250 m maximum walking distance. People are willing to
walk further to faster and more frequent services.

[somebody]

As you know, I never really agreed with that.  There is a need for routes with closely spaced stops.  Perhaps not at BUZ frequency of course.

[Mr X]

196 needs to be an all stopper BUT as a regular user I can easily comprise a list of bus stops which can be safely removed. Shall I do the honours?

[#Metro]

As you know, I never really agreed with that.  There is a need for routes with closely spaced stops.  Perhaps not at BUZ frequency of course.

As you know I never agreed with your via Ivory St tunnel either. Disagree with the closely spaced stops though. As a regular user it is just TOOO SLOOOOWWWWW
My bicycle can match route 196, and its just an average boring bike and I'm no athlete either. TOOO SLOOOOWWWWWW

[#Metro]

196 needs to be an all stopper BUT as a regular user I can easily comprise a list of bus stops which can be safely removed. Shall I do the honours?

Absolutely! *CHAINSAW WHIRRING*

[Mr X]

At the very least:
1. Russell St I/B AND O/B stops on Browning Street;
2. That redundant and confusing 198 hail n' ride stop with no timetable opposite State High on Vulture Street.
3. The stop O/B on Gladstone Rd approaching Dorchester St, across an intersection from State High and it's stop.
4. The stop O/B opposite Beaconsfield Tce was removed earlier in 2011- yippee!
5. Either the stop approaching Bower St I/B (my stop, but I can use the Ampthill St one instead) OR the St Itas one I/B, though it provides a good connection to the school.
6. The stop O/B approaching Wahcumba St, 2mins walk before the next stop at Deighton Rd. It basically encourages jaywalking.
7. One of the O/B stops at Fairfield Park, some sort of pedestrian connectivity across Fairfield Rd would be nice here too.
8. O/B approaching Brougham St! You're almost at Fairfield Gardens and it's practically redundant.
9. The stop I/B on Melbourne St two blocks away from the Cultural Centre

Edit: this isn't including the stops on the New Farm part of the route. From the times I have used the Merthyr leg, I can recall the bus stop departures at the terminus itself were confusing.

[somebody]

I guess you could argue that the stops between Boundary St and the Cultural Centre along Melbourne St should no longer be served by the 199 or 196 or CityGlider - just have them served by the 192.

[Mr X]

It runs every 1/2 hour, at crap operating times, on monday to friday only. On my experiences, Melbourne St attracts quite a lot of patronage, particularly from the new residential developments in the area. It should be served by the 196 at least.

[SurfRail]

I guess you could argue that the stops between Boundary St and the Cultural Centre along Melbourne St should no longer be served by the 199 or 196 or CityGlider - just have them served by the 192.

Or just remove the stop at Punjabi Palace, which leaves only one between CC and West End junction.  The SW1 area is walkable to the CC/South Bris or the remaining stop.

[somebody]

I guess you could argue that the stops between Boundary St and the Cultural Centre along Melbourne St should no longer be served by the 199 or 196 or CityGlider - just have them served by the 192.

Or just remove the stop at Punjabi Palace, which leaves only one between CC and West End junction.  The SW1 area is walkable to the CC/South Bris or the remaining stop.

Is that HBU's stop 9?

[Mr X]

Stop 9 on my list is the stop at the corner of Merivale St and Melbourne St.

[somebody]

I guess you could argue that the stops between Boundary St and the Cultural Centre along Melbourne St should no longer be served by the 199 or 196 or CityGlider - just have them served by the 192.

Or just remove the stop at Punjabi Palace, which leaves only one between CC and West End junction.  The SW1 area is walkable to the CC/South Bris or the remaining stop.

Couldn't see this stop in Google Street View.  O/B there are two stops I am suggesting the 199 should bypass - Melbourne St approaching Cordelia St, and Melbourne St far side of Manning St.
I/B that would be Melbourne St approaching Manning St and Melbourne St approaching Merivale St.

If these stops are only served by the 192 I don't reckon that would be a problem, but as a minimum, the 199 should non stop these.

[AnonymouslyBad]

Realistically I'd probably want to rip out all the stops and start over.
Just taking out some existing stops and leaving the rest alone might have the effect of making gaps too big. Though there may be one or two cases where you can get away with it, which shows how ridiculous the current stopping pattern is.

The standard for all stops is supposed to be 400m, isn't it? They should stick to that. You can give or take a little bit to ensure the location is convenient, but at present you can end up with four stops in a kilometre. That's insane.

As for the actual route, I think it's fine, I wouldn't support swapping the 199 and Glider routes. Not sure about the Valley; it's not exactly a part of the route that attracts low patronage so Ivory St full-time might be a tough sell in that regard. I'd much prefer road changes to allow buses to get through the Valley more easily, as per SurfRail's suggestions, but chances of that happening seem to be zero

[somebody]

I think it's residents are supposed to have a bus stop within 400m.  Doesn't have to be an express or BUZ stop.

[#Metro]

I think it's residents are supposed to have a bus stop within 400m.  Doesn't have to be an express or BUZ stop.

I think one needs to think about the purpose of the standard and whether it is worthwhile to apply it in this case. Browning Street for example on the 196 is insane - three stops, one at the start, one in the middle and one at the and and the road is only 700m long!

[Mr X]

Gladstone Road near Dornoch Tce used to have 3 bus stops in a space of about 200m total outbound. Pure lunacy, luckily the middle stop was removed as bus drivers kept missing it.

[somebody]

I think it's residents are supposed to have a bus stop within 400m.  Doesn't have to be an express or BUZ stop.

I think one needs to think about the purpose of the standard and whether it is worthwhile to apply it in this case. Browning Street for example on the 196 is insane - three stops, one at the start, one in the middle and one at the and and the road is only 700m long!

If the 192 still serves those stops, the standard is still met.

[AnonymouslyBad]

If the 192 still serves those stops, the standard is still met.

That's true, it would meet the letter of the standard, I don't think that's going to be acceptable to the spirit of the standard in a place like West End though

The road network in these areas is pretty straightforward. For the 199 and 196 catchments, I'm not sure where having stops every 200m or 250m would actually be required just to get everyone in the easy walking distance. If it is (I'm thinking of the big gap in Highgate Hill in between the two) - then that's really a hole in the actual network coverage that needs to be fixed.

[#Metro]

That's true, it would meet the letter of the standard, I don't think that's going to be acceptable to the spirit of the standard in a place like West End though

The road network in these areas is pretty straightforward. For the 199 and 196 catchments, I'm not sure where having stops every 200m or 250m would actually be required just to get everyone in the easy walking distance. If it is (I'm thinking of the big gap in Highgate Hill in between the two) - then that's really a hole in the actual network coverage that needs to be fixed.

I will pull my hair out if we end up like Melbourne with ridiculously SLOW trams services stopping everywhere. In this case, if you want people on the bus, it has to be faster than a) driving and b) bicycle. It is possible to ride a bicycle from Fairfield to the CBD via Annerly road and BEAT the 196. Maybe the same could be said with 199 as well.

What the CityGlider vs 199 comparison does show, is that is IS possible to have wide stop spacing even within a dense urban context and still get very decent patronage. I think 800 m is a bit much though 500 m - 700 is not bad standard, in fact I think there should be a range, seems silly to have one size fit all with no discretion on what the on the ground circumstance is. Who made this standard and why?

Case in point- we have 2 different routes (412 and 402) on Schonell Drive. Hardly anyone ever uses the 402 stops, they are a waste of time and space and should be deleted. Same with route 411- CUT!!!

As for the big gap in highgate hill, the 198 should be cut back and steam ironed straight to travel to West End Ferry via Ryan Street as discussed elsewhere on the forum.

[Mr X]

The other O/B stop is about where that white car is. It takes about 10-20 seconds for the bus to move between the stops. Very irritating.

[#Metro]

Oh that one, that one is a PAIN IN THE ******** BLEEP!!!

BROWNING STREET is also a shocker! Come on TransLink.
Get out the chainsaw and CUT!!!

Do something about that 198 as well!

[Mr X]

My 2nd accessible stop (yes, the stops are so close there are two, possibly THREE, I can conveniently use for I/B trips. Same for O/B) is the one in the distance 

[#Metro]

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6068.0

Media release 28 May 2011

SEQ: Core Frequent Network - Need for SPEED on BUZ 196 and BUZ 199

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 has welcomed TransLink's
latest service improvements to West End - City - New Farm 196 and 199 BUZ services.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"RAIL Back On Track has long argued that the fastest, cheapest way to improve the public transport system
in Brisbane is a targeted, selective boost of services to create a Core Frequent Network covering Brisbane
with a network of selective trunk, high-capacity, high-frequency, traffic-prioritised workhorse rail, ferry and bus routes (1)."

"The speed of a service is directly related to how closely the stops are spaced (2). The BUZ 196 and 199 have
excessively close stop spacing which results in a service that at times is rather slow. For example, there are
three 196 bus stops within a stone's throw of each other on Browning street, a street that is only around 700
metres in length! Outside St Ita's school at Dutton park, there are two 196 bus stops within stone's throw distance."

"Some of the bus stop locations are where historical tram stops were.  Time has moved on and it is appropriate
for some stop rationalisation to improve efficiency."

"Speed matters and people are willing to walk further to higher speed services. It also means a service that is
cheaper to run. RAIL Back On Track suggests TransLink consider widening stop spacings on BUZ 199 and BUZ 196
so that services are faster. For example,  a stop every 500 metres or so will result in a faster service while the
distance anyone will have to walk between stops will be 250 metres at the very worst (3). Of course local conditions
should also be taken into account and stops should only be removed after a  community consultation process."

"RAIL Back On Track welcomes TransLink's recent upgrades to the Brisbane bus network. We look forward to seeing
similar improvements to all day train frequency. Public transport must be fast and frequent!"

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

References:

1. Building a Core Frequent Network
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5173.0

Stop spacing: the endless, thankless, and essential struggle
2. http://www.humantransit.org/2010/03/stop-spacing-the-endless-thankless-and-essential-struggle.html

3. If two bus stops are spaced 500m apart, the point at which a passenger is at maximum distance from both stops
is exactly half way. So 500 divided by two = 250 m maximum walking distance. People are willing to
walk further to faster and more frequent services.

[Mr X]

How can we forget this gem?


Middle stop was removed in May but still  stop spacing and planning FAIL.

I must say, the spacing on some routes in Mansfield area should be looked at too.

[#Metro]

I like this exercise!

There are a few on the Fairfield Rd side that could probably be cut. There are two stops for Fairfield Park; 411 and 402 is also pretty bad as well.

Wonder what 199 would look like...

[Mr X]

I wouldn't mind a peak hour "rocket" that expresses down Merivale/Cordelia, effectively bypassing Vulture/Browning/Melbourne Streets. Peak hour = slow!

[STB]

I have a feeling a lot of these stops got put up over time from narky residents wanting a stop to their front door.  Could've been also a case of different policies with bus stops and spacing back in the pre-TL days.

[Mr X]

I used to be able to take the 202 from the cultural centre and interchange to a 196 at dorchester st, even if I had missed that 196. Just looked it up, the 196 no longer serves that stop, but the 202 does? strange 

[somebody]

If the 192 still serves those stops, the standard is still met.

That's true, it would meet the letter of the standard, I don't think that's going to be acceptable to the spirit of the standard in a place like West End though

The road network in these areas is pretty straightforward. For the 199 and 196 catchments, I'm not sure where having stops every 200m or 250m would actually be required just to get everyone in the easy walking distance. If it is (I'm thinking of the big gap in Highgate Hill in between the two) - then that's really a hole in the actual network coverage that needs to be fixed.

So why's it unacceptable in West End when it is acceptable at the north end of Indooroopilly, which is really only served by the 415 (and 414 to UQ).  That is a far worse service than the 192.

I wouldn't mind a peak hour "rocket" that expresses down Merivale/Cordelia, effectively bypassing Vulture/Browning/Melbourne Streets. Peak hour = slow!

I could live with that.

[O_128]

the 414 is hell on wheels, it is the most infuriating bus I have ever been on. the 199 needs to be prepaid, simple.

[Mr X]

The people of west end, by my experiences, tend to have a phobia of go cards.