POLL: 333+109 post Northern Busway to Kedron

[somebody]

109 BUZ makes little sense on the current route to me.  I feel that the on road bit will be less important once the Northern Busway reaches Kedron.

333+109 aka 333 extension to UQ Lakes, achieves all the goals of the 66+109 without the limitations of taking the 66 out of W'Gabba and weekend and evening 109 trips which are still necessary.

I'd suggest a 341 as a reasonable additional service - run UQ - busway - RBH then current route.  Those leaving from Parliament (1-2 pax) can use the 331/332 and interchange.  KGSBS stops are a limitation but I'd trip a northbound 66 trip in the PM and use that stop for every 341 trip.  This suggestion may be controversial, I guess.

[Gazza]

Should be 111+333 as far as I'm concerned.

What bothers you about the 109? Is it the CBD end? What should change, if it were to remain a standalone route?

[somebody]

What bothers you about the 109? Is it the CBD end? What should change, if it were to remain a standalone route?

There will always be a need for a city-UQ Lakes route.  What bothers me is the reliance on this route.  SEB people should be using 139/169/209/(159).  Old Cleveland Rd people should be using those routes also (except for the via Gabba bit of the 200+204).  Stanley Rd, Richmond Rd and Wynnum Rd people should use the 29 - I'm in favour of keeping it, but make it more useful.

Also, the 109 is a slug between South Bank and Park Rd.  I think the trains are bad, but the bus is far worse.

[Gazza]

I thought it was mostly used by CBD-UQ Pax anyway.

[somebody]

I thought it was mostly used by CBD-UQ Pax anyway.

Not too sure about that.  Let's say I live in Bardon and study at UQ.  How am I getting there?  via the CBD most likely.  GCL is really the only other option, and that's a bad interchange UQ bound at Toowong.

[longboi]

How would combining it with the 333 have any effect on it being used by south/east side pax though?

I'd much rather see an Aspley-UQ route which joins Bowen Bridge Rd after RBWH and then travels via Story Bridge and Woolloongabba station to UQ Lakes. In effect it would reduce the amount of overcrowding on the 109 making it less of an issue if pax continue to use it to transfer to Buranda (The 29 increase will go some way in helping that as well).

[somebody]

How would combining it with the 333 have any effect on it being used by south/east side pax though?

It wouldn't.

That wasn't my reason for suggesting it though.  I wanted the 333+109 for all the reasons we argued for 66+109 - connecting RBH&UQ for a start.  Also, there would be a reduction in Cultural Centre congestion.  Another thing is that it would make Everton Park-UQ Lakes a 1 change rather than 2 change trip, for example.

This:

What bothers you about the 109? Is it the CBD end? What should change, if it were to remain a standalone route?

There will always be a need for a city-UQ Lakes route.  What bothers me is the reliance on this route.  SEB people should be using 139/169/209/(159).  Old Cleveland Rd people should be using those routes also (except for the via Gabba bit of the 200+204).  Stanley Rd, Richmond Rd and Wynnum Rd people should use the 29 - I'm in favour of keeping it, but make it more useful.

Also, the 109 is a slug between South Bank and Park Rd.  I think the trains are bad, but the bus is far worse.

wasn't really an answer to "why should we combine the 333 & 109", more an answer to: "what is wrong with the 109?"

[Gazza]

GCL is really the only other option, and that's a bad interchange UQ bound at Toowong.

UQ bound interchanges are easy at Toowong.

[somebody]

GCL is really the only other option, and that's a bad interchange UQ bound at Toowong.

UQ bound interchanges are easy at Toowong.

From the GCL you need to get off on Jephson St, walk along Sherwood Rd and High St, cross Benson St.  It's several hundred metres involved.  I wouldn't call it an easy interchange.

[longboi]

It wouldn't.

That wasn't my reason for suggesting it though.  I wanted the 333+109 for all the reasons we argued for 66+109 - connecting RBH&UQ for a start.  Also, there would be a reduction in Cultural Centre congestion.  Another thing is that it would make Everton Park-UQ Lakes a 1 change rather than 2 change trip, for example.

Fair enough.

I can certainly see the benefit in a single-seat connection between Herston (UQ med school) and UQ St Lucia.

It would be a fine balancing act though, considering the loadings on the 333 in its current form and then introducing 109 pax to that. However, a frequency upgrade would probably address this and spread the load a bit.

[somebody]

A frequency upgrade is certainly one possibility.  I see another - add a stop for the 330 and 340 at Windsor.  That would make cross town connections between those bus routes and the Ferny Grove line far easier so is probably justified.

[Gazza]

I thought it was mostly used by CBD-UQ Pax anyway.

Not too sure about that.  Let's say I live in Bardon and study at UQ.  How am I getting there?  via the CBD most likely.  GCL is really the only other option, and that's a bad interchange UQ bound at Toowong.

That's my point. why cant people from the Northside just keep doing what they always have....Come into the CBD and interchange to the 109?
Why does it need to be linked to one route out of many?

[longboi]

A frequency upgrade is certainly one possibility.  I see another - add a stop for the 330 and 340 at Windsor.  That would make cross town connections between those bus routes and the Ferny Grove line far easier so is probably justified.

Yeah I think the gains from the new busway corridor would mean a new stop could be added without much fuss.

I think a direct route to UQ for the northside is more important, though. The provision of a single-seat journey from Aspley and/or Chermside would be of a greater benefit to a larger number of people than providing one for Herston-UQ. That way there is plenty of room for growth whereas an extended 333 has its limitations with overcrowding.

[somebody]

You don't see the positives?  Reducing Cultural Centre congestion in terms of numbers of buses is a huge bonus of this.  Many people think getting the 109 serving Roma St is very logical, although I personally think we should be doing more to encourage people to use the train to reach Park Rd (or Toowong) where they get on a bus.  Another advantage is reducing pressure on the Hope St layover area.  Let's say I live in Kedron and want to go to South Bank, currently you would interchange at the Cultural Centre, but if the 333+109 goes through then you don't need to.

I think it should be still numbered 333.

BTW, I was thinking about the 111+333, this morning.  It's longer than the 555.  Ignoring Veolia and LCBS rockets, that would be the second, third or fourth longest SEQ bus route (649, 359, 330 being the longest AIUI) without recovery time.  250 is longer but has recovery time, 649 is longer (do we count that? - It's a rail replacement), GCL is longer but has regular recovery time.

I don't agree with the 111+333 idea, and the authorities don't like it either.

[HappyTrainGuy]

ARGHHHHHH SINGLE SEAT JOURNEY. If its via the busway why does it have to be a new route all the way from Aspley/Chermside? Use the current buz and just transfer in the inner city. Learn to transfer  

But running via the busway isn't the same as many of the other routes. Its along its own corridor and its focused on speed rather than looping around everywhere. It wouldn't really need recovery time anyway as its a turn up and go service. Even the 555 has so much fat in it that its constantly early into CCBS and there have been times when the driver can get out, go to the toilet, have a smoke and then leave on time at Springwood and yet still get the bus a couple minutes early into Logan Hyperdome. If its not going to be merged to reduce congestion in the innercity the 333 should at least be extended to the Chermside Markets via Hamilton-Webster/Murphy-Ellison roads or any of the other multiple routes that are possible

[Gazza]

If we can have 88 doing a big chunk along stagnation drive, then having the 333 + 111 is about 4km more than that, and runs on busway for the vast majority anyway.

What makes this situation any different?

[#Metro]

If we can have 88 doing a big chunk along stagnation drive, then having the 333 + 111 is about 4km more than that, and runs on busway for the vast majority anyway.

What makes this situation any different?

University semesters mean seasonal demand. Although 66 is a precedent here...

I would not join routes together that have large sections running on congested roads. I don't think P88 is a good model to copy, and as a matter of fact I don't think it should even exist!

[somebody]

If we can have 88 doing a big chunk along stagnation drive, then having the 333 + 111 is about 4km more than that, and runs on busway for the vast majority anyway.

What makes this situation any different?

Well only a few points, but the 88 sucks.  Constantly driving inbound along Coronation Drive at 45km/h to prevent arriving early at King George Square and probably Roma St.

Also, the 88 is assisted by an all busway service in the 111 so even if it becomes unreliable, another route will be along shortly.  If you made the 111 not all busway, that wouldn't apply any more.

[longboi]

ARGHHHHHH SINGLE SEAT JOURNEY. If its via the busway why does it have to be a new route all the way from Aspley/Chermside? Use the current buz and just transfer in the inner city. Learn to transfer  

There is only so much capacity on one bus route and I feel the demand for travel to UQ from the northside would be sufficient enough to warrant a direct route, in similar vein to the 139 et. al.

[#Metro]

There is only so much capacity on one bus route and I feel the demand for travel to UQ from the northside would be sufficient enough to warrant a direct route, in similar vein to the 139 et. al.

Why can't they just catch 77 and transfer at Buranda?

[Gazza]

Cause Brisbanites shouldn't be made to transfer because of reasons, duh! 

[somebody]

Hmm, currently 4 vs 3, in favour.

[#Metro]

P88 cost millions and millions of dollars just so someone saves 30 seconds to a minute in waiting at Cultural Centre or elsewhere.

It is just not worth it. Lazy b*tts should get out and transfer!

109 is also seasonal - service varies with uni semesters. 333 is a core frequent route. They're probably incompatible passenger loading and peaking profiles.

People need to transfer! That way the system can save multi-millions which can instead be spent giving mobility and freedom of movement to areas which do not have these options (BUZ 400 and BUZ 230).

[somebody]

109 has 1 semester only UQ bound trip and 12 ex-UQ trips per weekday.  Not too concerned about these running either full time or as semester only extensions of other routes.

[HappyTrainGuy]

There is only so much capacity on one bus route and I feel the demand for travel to UQ from the northside would be sufficient enough to warrant a direct route, in similar vein to the 139 et. al.

Why can't they just catch 77 and transfer at Buranda?

Or the 330, 340, somewhat the 325/335 and transfer in the city.

[somebody]

somewhat the 325/335 and transfer in the city.

Be a fairly lengthy walk from those routes to the current 109 stop.

[Gazza]

So?

Guess what, it's a longer walk from UQ lakes to many final destinations at UQ itself.

PT passengers, by default, are pedestrians too, so I dunno what is to be gained by lowering what are in fact short walks, not lengthy.

[somebody]

So?

Guess what, it's a longer walk from UQ lakes to many final destinations at UQ itself.

PT passengers, by default, are pedestrians too, so I dunno what is to be gained by lowering what are in fact short walks, not lengthy.

I think UQ Lakes station should have been located further away from the river, even if you have to fill in the corner of one of the lakes.

Anyway, PT generally needs to reduce walking - it's a disincentive to PT use and increases journey times over all.

[somebody]

Why should it be a 111+333 then?

[Gazza]

Creates a strong north south line, just like the line pairings on the rail network.

[STB]

If I may suggest, you could almost get rid of the 77 and instead have a 111+333 pairing.  Just needs to be sure that there is reliability and consistency in the timetable, so I doubt it would happen unless the busway got extended to Chermside (and beyond).

[longboi]

There is only so much capacity on one bus route and I feel the demand for travel to UQ from the northside would be sufficient enough to warrant a direct route, in similar vein to the 139 et. al.

Why can't they just catch 77 and transfer at Buranda?

They could, providing frequency on 77 and capacity between Buranda and UQ Lakes is sufficient. However, an advantage of my proposal is that it would also cater for students in Herston and Kangaroo Point. A direct route from Chermside would also make public transport a more attractive option for those using feeder services into Chermside.

I envisage a network where you don't need to travel to the CBD to transfer, where there are a number of hubs - fed by local services - connected by a series of HFP routes. The HFP routes between hubs are based on common travel patterns. Transferring is fine and would be integral to this type of network, but where there is significant demand between two points then this would be the deciding factor on where the HFP routes would travel. In this case one hub is Chermside, the other is UQ Lakes.  

[HappyTrainGuy]

somewhat the 325/335 and transfer in the city.

Be a fairly lengthy walk from those routes to the current 109 stop.

Transfer via Busway 

[somebody]

Creates a strong north south line, just like the line pairings on the rail network.

So?  A bus isn't a train and has different priorities.  Our rail network would collapse if we didn't have through running, but if the 88 is anything to go by the bus network would be degraded by increased through running.  Short routes like the 19x, 375, 475, 470 aren't quite so bad. 

Besides, I'd think that a 333+109 would reduce transfers more than a 333+111, and the negative implications of the latter are very much reduced in the former.  Still exist mind you, but I think they are a price worth paying.  The 169+209 still connects Park Rd with UQ Lakes with the current reliability and a reasonable frequency, even out of semester, even if the new 333 becomes less reliable than the 109 was.

If I may suggest, you could almost get rid of the 77 and instead have a 111+333 pairing.  Just needs to be sure that there is reliability and consistency in the timetable, so I doubt it would happen unless the busway got extended to Chermside (and beyond).

You can suggest, and I would go further and suggest you could get rid of the 77 and change nothing else. 

The 77 is actually another reason why the 330 and 340 (not 331 and 341) should serve Windsor Rail.

somewhat the 325/335 and transfer in the city.

Be a fairly lengthy walk from those routes to the current 109 stop.

Transfer via Busway 

That's what I'd do also.  Means a double change at present, but a same platform change is many times easier than having to swap platforms at a busway station.

[Gazza]

So?  A bus isn't a train and has different priorities.

Actually, the 111 and 333 are like trains/ Light Rail, and are doing the same job as rail in these parts of Brisbane.
These aren't go everywhere coverage routes (Which do have different priorities), they are heavy haul direct routes, that stop at 'stations', and are what we have because the Northen and SE Busways weren't built as heavy rail. Still class A & B ROW for most of the way though.

[HappyTrainGuy]

So?  A bus isn't a train and has different priorities.

Actually, the 111 and 333 are like trains/ Light Rail, and are doing the same job as rail in these parts of Brisbane.
These aren't go everywhere coverage routes (Which do have different priorities), they are heavy haul direct routes, that stop at 'stations', and are what we have because the Northen and SE Busways weren't built as heavy rail. Still class A & B ROW for most of the way though.

I'd also have to agree.

Wow, I never ever ever ever considered saying buses are the same as trains. WHO BROKE THE UNIVERSE!!

[Gazza]

Wow, I never ever ever ever considered saying buses are the same as trains. WHO BROKE THE UNIVERSE!!

Jarret Walker did:
http://www.humantransit.org/2011/02/sorting-out-rail-bus-differences.html

[HappyTrainGuy]

Now to effectivly link the two together with hourly/2 hour feeder routes supplied by Translink..... UNIVERSE REPAIRED!!  

[somebody]

So?  A bus isn't a train and has different priorities.

Actually,

Actually is a word to prefix or suffix facts.

What followed is not a fact at all, rather your opinion.

Creates a strong north south line, just like the line pairings on the rail network.

Such a line wouldn't be strong at all, for reasons I have already mentioned.

[Gazza]

Actually is a word to prefix or suffix facts.

What followed is not a fact at all, rather your opinion.

Its cool and all that you can pick up on grammatical errors, but that has little importance in the context of this discussion.
Red herring to make your post look longer. You only needed to say the last line.