Variations

[Gazza]

http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/100726_450,453,454,P455,P456,P457,P458,P459.pdf

http://mobile.translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/111211-200,N200,P201,P206,P207,P217,222.pdf

Here's a couple of PDFs of route bundles as a talking point.
I'm on Iphone, so apologies if it seems short for an opening post.

But basically, where did this disease of bundles of 95% identical routes come from?
Does it occur outside BCC, or anywhere else in Aus?

Look at the 200 coridor for instance, they all seem basically the same, but go on crack at the CBD end.

There seems to be this notion that because a bus is flexible, that every possible niche route on a coridoor should be served, purely because they can.
Furthermore, it is assumed pax are predictable and will use the correct route of many that is "best for them".

I live on a rail line, and have one choice in terms of "route" to the CBD and 2 sequential CBD stops.
If someone is lucky enough to live at an express stop, they get a rare 2nd choice in terms of stopping pattern.

Yet someone at Mt Ommaney somehow needs or is entitled to 8 different ways to the city?

Why would there be a fundamental difference in travel needs between someone on a rail coridoor, and someone on a bus coridoor?

Discuss.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Translink needs to stop making colouring in books imo.

[STB]

The 45x series routes are historical, even existing prior to the BT restructure back in the late 90s as I was told a while back by someone who was key to creating the 100, 200, 300, 400 notion which we have today, he told me that another planner looking after the western services just simply added the 4 to the end of the existing routes but never changed them or did any work to sort them out, while other Planners looked after the rest of the region and did go about sorting those areas out.  

I do believe that work has been done in the past to sort those routes out but nothing yet has come to light.

Most variations come about usually because noisy locals pester their local MPs and TL (or BCC or Qld Transport pre TL) until they get their way, even if they only wish to use it once a week.  There was one bus route out west that did a loop-de-loop-de-loop, because one elderly lady kept pestering the local MP and TL almost every day until she got what she wanted, a route that went past her front door all the time, even if she only used it occasionally.  She even made the local papers, calling success and sensibility at her little victory. 

[david]

Here's a couple more shockers:

http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/111212-150,P151,152,153,156,P157.pdf

http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/110610_P129,130,131,132,P133,136,P137,139.pdf

[Mr X]

^^ You forgot the 14x
http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/100901-140,P141,P142.pdf


The good old 191/193 and 190/194 were classic examples of this too. Both fixed now

[somebody]

^^ You forgot the 14x
http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/100901-140,P141,P142.pdf

What's wrong with that one?

But you can't actually change an existing route (sarcasm).  That's how we got the illogical situation where the 207 non stops Bennetts Rd but the longer 217 serves it.

[#Metro]

Yet someone at Mt Ommaney somehow needs or is entitled to 8 different ways to the city?

Funny that. And they all finish up at the same place!

Seriously, why not a single BUZ 400, then a supplementary BUZ standard service, terminating at Indooroopilly. It would also free up space in the CBD for something else.

[achiruel]

^^ You forgot the 14x
http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/100901-140,P141,P142.pdf

I don't think the 14x is really that bad.  It has one regular express, a peak hour rocket (skips several stops) and a peak hour bullet (which non-stop Grand Plaza <> City).  Unless you're referring to the city stop locations, in which case I agree it would be better if they'd all leave from the same place, or at least nearby/adjoining stops. 

[Mr X]

I meant it as another service down Mains Rd, though I quite like the 140, it's route is logical and straight.

Nice to see TL are making this even worse with the new 138.. 

[achiruel]

Ok, makes sense now.  Although I think the 14x and 13x both have to travel down Mains Rd, I don't see a lot of other options there.  But yes, the number of variations should be cut:

130 - current route
131 - peak hour rocket via 130 route, express from Altandi & via CCB
132 - peak hour bullet via 130 route to Calam Rd, then via Compton Rd, Gateway/SEB
133 - short working as per now
139 - to UQ Lakes

I guess it's not a huge reduction in # of routes (9 > 5, if you include 138) but to me it seems a helluva lot similar.

[somebody]

Ok, makes sense now.  Although I think the 14x and 13x both have to travel down Mains Rd, I don't see a lot of other options there.  But yes, the number of variations should be cut:

130 - current route
131 - peak hour rocket via 130 route, express from Altandi & via CCB
132 - peak hour bullet via 130 route to Calam Rd, then via Compton Rd, Gateway/SEB
133 - short working as per now
139 - to UQ Lakes

I guess it's not a huge reduction in # of routes (9 > 5, if you include 138) but to me it seems a helluva lot similar.

I think it should be:

129 - cut
130 - via Hellawell Rd otherwise current route
131 - Direct along Algester Rd otherwise current route
132 - Garden City (as present) but via Sunnybank Hills shops and Algester Rd
133 - truncate to Mains Rd park and ride.  Isn't this rocket more for the busway stations?
136 - bypass Garden City, possibly via Hellawell Rd otherwise current route
137 - as current
139 - as current

Not too sure about stopping patterns along Mains Rd/Pinelands Rd/Calam Rd, I think these need sorting out also.  136, 137 & 139 should serve all 130/140 stops.

Do we really need a via Gateway route for this corridor?

[Mr X]

Extending the 139 might be a good idea. I have regular reports of 130+139 users having troubles swapping to O/B 130s at Griffith University due to overcrowding.

[achiruel]

I think it should be:
133 - truncate to Mains Rd park and ride.  Isn't this rocket more for the busway stations?

Sounds reasonable.

132 - Garden City (as present) but via Sunnybank Hills shops and Algester Rd

Does there really need to be a direct Mains Rd <-> Garden City connection?  It's not that much further to Griffith Uni and there are plenty of connecting buses (111/150/160/555).

Do we really need a via Gateway route for this corridor?

Considering how congested Mains Rd gets during peak hours, I think there would be significant time savings.  Faster journey = more attractive to commuters = less cars on the road (hopefully).

Extending the 139 might be a good idea. I have regular reports of 130+139 users having troubles swapping to O/B 130s at Griffith University due to overcrowding.

Wouldn't the be better off just staying on the 139 until it's terminus and changing there?

[somebody]

132 - Garden City (as present) but via Sunnybank Hills shops and Algester Rd

Does there really need to be a direct Mains Rd <-> Garden City connection?  It's not that much further to Griffith Uni and there are plenty of connecting buses (111/150/160/555).

I'd be reluctant to remove it.  It is annoying to have to use an overbridge/subway to effect an interchange.

Extending the 139 might be a good idea. I have regular reports of 130+139 users having troubles swapping to O/B 130s at Griffith University due to overcrowding.

Wouldn't the be better off just staying on the 139 until it's terminus and changing there?

What I was thinking also, although Pinelands would be the best interchange as you are picking up the 129/131/136 as well there.

[somebody]

I think the 131 which I posted on above should be non stop between Altandi and the city.

And if we are taking the 136 out of Garden City, I think the 156 should become a city precincts service. (Wharf St and Parliament)

[Mr X]

Wouldn't the be better off just staying on the 139 until it's terminus and changing there?

Didn't think of that- will tell him later.

[SurfRail]

Does there really need to be a direct Mains Rd <-> Garden City connection?  It's not that much further to Griffith Uni and there are plenty of connecting buses (111/150/160/555).

That's what the Great Circle Line is for.  The successor route will fix this issue with a simple same-stop interchange at Sunnybank.

As an interim solution, perhaps extend the 590 to terminate at Sunnybank Plaza via the current GCL route.  When the new 59# route comes on line, truncate it back to Garden City.

I would honestly get rid of the 132 - it serves no purpose other than to entrench the notion you need bus stops 250 m apart.

[somebody]

I would honestly get rid of the 132 - it serves no purpose other than to entrench the notion you need bus stops 250 m apart.

Then what would serve the blue stops?  Assuming there are a number of them, of course.

[SurfRail]

I would honestly get rid of the 132 - it serves no purpose other than to entrench the notion you need bus stops 250 m apart.

Then what would serve the blue stops?  Assuming there are a number of them, of course.

Nothing.  Rip them out.

Have a look at the Gold Coast Highway for a good example of bus stop spacing intervals.  There are plenty of retirees down here, and nobody crows about stop spacing.  It is just accepted that they are every 300-500m.  The corridor between Broadbeach and Nobby Beach is probably the best arterial in the state at the moment for bus priority, pedestrian safety, traffic flow and bus stop placement - the buses go fast and are highly competitive with driving in this stretch.

I would copy the same treatment and put it everywhere possible - Mains Road, Coro Drive, ANZAC Ave (which is itself pretty good), Gympie Rd etc. 

[#Metro]

Nothing.  Rip them out.

Finally, some sense!

[somebody]

I would honestly get rid of the 132 - it serves no purpose other than to entrench the notion you need bus stops 250 m apart.

Then what would serve the blue stops?  Assuming there are a number of them, of course.

Nothing.  Rip them out.

Have a look at the Gold Coast Highway for a good example of bus stop spacing intervals.  There are plenty of retirees down here, and nobody crows about stop spacing.  It is just accepted that they are every 300-500m.  The corridor between Broadbeach and Nobby Beach is probably the best arterial in the state at the moment for bus priority, pedestrian safety, traffic flow and bus stop placement - the buses go fast and are highly competitive with driving in this stretch.

I would copy the same treatment and put it everywhere possible - Mains Road, Coro Drive, ANZAC Ave (which is itself pretty good), Gympie Rd etc. 

Stops every 300-500m is something the city-Indro corridor needs like a hole in the head.

I also see merit in the 132 in that it would (in my modified world) provide a connection between Algester and Sunnybank Hills shops which would be removed if you re-routed the 130.

[SurfRail]

Stops every 300-500m is something the city-Indro corridor needs like a hole in the head.

I also see merit in the 132 in that it would (in my modified world) provide a connection between Algester and Sunnybank Hills shops which would be removed if you re-routed the 130.

There are currently 8 stops between Roma St and Indooroopilly interchange (inclusive) on the 444 and P88. 

Going from outside Roma St station to Musgrave Rd at Indro is around 7km - plotted by Google.  Assuming there are still no stops between Roma St and Cribb St, the distance goes to about 5.5km.

By modifying the stop spacing slightly to allow only another 4 stops, you would have one every 500 metres from Cribb St to Indooroopilly, and could do away with the all stops routes entirely.  Every bus can stop at every bus stop, and the resulting frequency improvements would make it likely not every bus would actually need to do so.  Simple.

[somebody]

Stops every 300-500m is something the city-Indro corridor needs like a hole in the head.

I also see merit in the 132 in that it would (in my modified world) provide a connection between Algester and Sunnybank Hills shops which would be removed if you re-routed the 130.

There are currently 8 stops between Roma St and Indooroopilly interchange (inclusive) on the 444 and P88.  

Going from outside Roma St station to Musgrave Rd at Indro is around 7km - plotted by Google.  Assuming there are still no stops between Roma St and Cribb St, the distance goes to about 5.5km.

By modifying the stop spacing slightly to allow only another 4 stops, you would have one every 500 metres from Cribb St to Indooroopilly, and could do away with the all stops routes entirely.  Every bus can stop at every bus stop, and the resulting frequency improvements would make it likely not every bus would actually need to do so.  Simple.

The buses on this corridor if anything are too slow.  I'm inclined to remove the Cribb St, Auchenflower, BBC and Taringa stops from the 444 to speed it up.  What you are saying is the total opposite of this.

[Gazza]

and the resulting frequency improvements would make it likely not every bus would actually need to do so.

Exactly. The way I see it is that if there are enough buses on a corridor, then queues simply wont have enough time to form at stops to be a hinderance, especially at stops that don't get too busy.
Coupled with prepaid boarding, you end up with those nice runs where the bus is literally moving again the moment the disembarking passengers back foot hits the pavement.

Is there any known research on what skipping stops does in general for journey times? Eg minutes saved per stop.

I'd be reluctant to remove it.  It is annoying to have to use an overbridge/subway to effect an interchange.

How many preconditions on route design do we have to have?
Does it mean now if I intend to make a bus network proposal, I have to make sure people don't have to do this?

Most pax on the rail network have to use stairs at at least one of their trip.
We don't have any stations with cross platform interchange, so changing trains requires that generally too.
If someone is catching a feeder bus to the station, they mostly have to use stairs.
As do those boarding at busway stations at the start/end of their trip.
As do those using QSBS/KGS/CC/SB as their CBD terminus.

Seems a waste to run a whole route for this reason alone.

[SurfRail]

The buses on this corridor if anything are too slow.  I'm inclined to remove the Cribb St, Auchenflower, BBC and Taringa stops from the 444 to speed it up.  What you are saying is the total opposite of this.

You do note how when I mentioned the GC Hwy I also referred to bus priority, not replicating the same car-oriented arrangement?  Coro Dr just needs bi directional bus lanes, and then it will work fine.

[#Metro]

Seems a waste to run a whole route for this reason alone.

I agree with Gazza. P88 is a huge waste - MILLIONS AND MILLIONS just so someone can be saved 30 sec on some stairs.
Crazy!!!

Coro Dr just needs bi directional bus lanes, and then it will work fine.

Can someone draw a map and show me how this will work? Inbound is fine, but outbound may have issues.

[somebody]

For the record, the O/B 130 serves 16 stops from Robertson to Parkinson (inclusive)
the O/B 132 serves 33 stops from Robertson to Parkinson (inclusive).

[somebody]

The buses on this corridor if anything are too slow.  I'm inclined to remove the Cribb St, Auchenflower, BBC and Taringa stops from the 444 to speed it up.  What you are saying is the total opposite of this.

You do note how when I mentioned the GC Hwy I also referred to bus priority, not replicating the same car-oriented arrangement?  Coro Dr just needs bi directional bus lanes, and then it will work fine.

I highly doubt this occurring.  That would leave 2 inbound general traffic lanes, and one outbound lane.

[SurfRail]

Can someone draw a map and show me how this will work? Inbound is fine, but outbound may have issues.

You could have a continuous inbound bus lane from Booth St at Toowong to around the Merivale Bridge.  This gets you through the congestion I have observed at the GBB/Hale Street intersection which is even present in the pm peak.

The outbound bus lane would probably originate at Cribb Street but would need to be broken due to the lane reductions after the various right turns (Park Road, Sylvan Rd, Land Street etc). However, I think if this were a T2 or T3 lane it could be unbroken all the way out.  For legibility reasons, you would probably want the same treatment in and out.

So, I think the options may be:

1. Continuous inbound bus lane, broken outbound bus lane.
2. Continuous inbound and outbound T2 or T3 lanes.

There appears to be no reason why you could not have continuous bus lanes on Mains Road between the Calam Road stops and the motorway ramp (inbound)/Omeo Street (outbound).  Likewise, permanent T2 lanes all the way down Old Cleveland Rd from Langlands Park to Carindale in lieu of the busway, permanent bus or T3 lanes all the way from Kedron to Aspley in lieu of the busway, permanent bus lanes on Kelvin Grove and Enoggera Rds to Alderley etc - plenty of other corridors too.  Cheap as - just put up some signs, paint the threshold areas and put lettering in to do it the el cheapo way just to get started.  Eventually upgrade the road surface and bus stops and install signal priority for the premium version.  If the government is serious about this, they should implement it on whichever of these roads fall under TMR's jurisdiction.

[achiruel]

If the government is serious about this, they should implement it on whichever of these roads fall under TMR's jurisdiction.

The only one in that list is Gympie Rd, all others are BCC.

[Golliwog]

If the government is serious about this, they should implement it on whichever of these roads fall under TMR's jurisdiction.

The only one in that list is Gympie Rd, all others are BCC.

But I think post Coro Dr removal, legislation was changed so TMR can force bus/transit lanes in? That's what I heard anyway...

[Gazza]

Another thought.
Simon said this in a media release:

As has been mentioned before, a number of buses leave the CBD either from a different place to where intending passengers are, for example the PM peak most people bound for the 130 corridor wait at Queen St Bus Station for the 130 and ignore the faster 129, 131, 133 and 137 services which leave from Adelaide St. This is the reason why the 130 needs to operate at a base 5 minute headway in the PM peak, but manages with a 10 minute headway in the AM peak.

Uncoordinated city stops for a corridor are a bad thing.

But IMO, I don't actually think many flock to the 129, 131, 133, 137 specifically because they are faster. I think they just get used because they are there.
No sane person on a saturated bus corridor is going to get a bus go by when they all do the nearly same thing and get them where they are going. The risk in terms of the following bus being late, unable to take passengers etc etc makes this too risky.
Looking at the height of peak inbound, from Atlandi they mostly all take about 30 minutes give or take a couple of mintues, CCB or not. If they all more or less take the same amount of time, where is the incentive to pick one over the other? A spot of traffic congestion, arriving at an intersection at the end of the light cycle, a slow passenger, slow driver etc and you've lost the time saving anyway!

Part of the reason I'm all for simplicity.

Also the 136.

Departures from Lakewood
6:33
7:03
7:33
8:04
8:35

Then no more.

So peak hour only, and even then still pathetic frequency.

BT say they take a 'customer focused' approach rather than a 'textbook approach'.
But they musn't understand their customers/humans in general very well if they think someone in the morning would spend 30 min waiting for the next bus when they could grab one of the many others and be doing the interchange Griffith before the next 136 would have even left home.
The further inbound you go, the more pronounced this effect becomes!

[somebody]

The Garden City deviation is no doubt a deterrent to using the 136.

[Gazza]

I think the 136 is a deterrent to using the 136 

The only unique bit (Aside from going to Garden City) is a dumb little 1100m stretch along Nottingham Rd, where they can walk either 1100m to the 130, or 600m to the 150 anyway.

And before anyone says nobody would walk 600m, bear in mind the Calamvale Marketplace is where the 150 stop is, and if you lived that close to a Shopping Centre, you'd walk there pretty often.

As a welfare route it fails because its peak hour only, so anybody who takes it is kinda stuffed until the afternoon in terms of getting home.
Why not run it as a loop that goes along Nottingham Rd, Up Beaudestert Rd, into Sunnybank Hills Shoppingtown, and then back down Algester Rd for instance?

Neither fish nor fowl in its current form.

[somebody]

I think you are missing the point of the 136.  It's a "City Precincts" service - Parliament/Wharf St.  Ever used it or seen it go past?  It doesn't fail like (for example) the O/B 156 does.

Trim off the Garden City deviation, make the 156 a "City Precincts" service, to prevent removing this service from Garden City, and improve the usefulness of the 156, and I think both routes could see some improvement.

[Gazza]

So a network planner concluded that people living halfway between the 130 and the 150 have a need for a single  seat journey to Parliament, for a couple of hours in the morning peak. but people living by the 130 and 150 need QSBS instead?

[somebody]

So a network planner concluded that people living halfway between the 130 and the 150 have a need for a single  seat journey to Parliament, for a couple of hours in the morning peak. but people living by the 130 and 150 need QSBS instead?

Huh?  The 136 doesn't serve any stops between Mains Rd and Garden City.

The idea of the City Precincts service is that it reduces the walk time.  In Sydney they would tell you to suck it up of course, but that doesn't make it the correct call.

I cannot see that such services could be justified outside of peak hour, but I am reasonably comfortable with them existing in some cases, including this one.  The 344, 457, 458, 459 should be handled differently though.

EDIT: Perhaps you were referring to the "Lakewood" stop, which technically is between the 130 and 150.  It's not the only example of this.  131 stops on Algester Rd between Ridgewood Rd and Ridgewood Rd or on Endiandra St aren't served outside of peak, and neither are stops on Scrub Rd, Carindale south of Cribb Rd.  Also most stops on the 462 route between Darra and Richlands.  There are no doubt other examples.

[Gazza]

Re: No stops between Mains Rd and Garden City, When I said between the 130 and the 150, I was referring to the only other unique part of the route, its terminus at Lakewood Ave, not the Mains Rd- Garden City bit.

Again, the post above seems  to not acknowledge how people actually act in the real world.
That people will somehow let multiple more frequent buses pass them by in order to catch a low frequency niche route, or that people who have just missed  a niche route would wait 30min for the next one when they could be on the way and at their final destination sooner by taking the other options.

It's a half hourly bus route that runs a span of 2h in peaks only. If this were the only PT option in a standalone area then those factors alone would make it very unpopular to begin with.

But, put it in a context where it is between two frequent TUAG bus corridors, that both offer a faster and more direct option, and that pretty much  destroys any notion of it being useful or popular. People happily travel a little bit further to pick up a frequent more faster service at Darra station rather than using surrounding ones. The same factor would be in play here.

The city precincts walk distance argument is bull. I don't get a dedicated city precincts service with similar span and frequency running from out the front of Oxley station, so why should they?

You're gonna say that long walk distances are a disincentive to patronage, but on the flip side a 2h span, 2bph route is not an incentive to patronage, and a network that is overly complex and unpredictable is a disincentive to patronage.

Any pax this route is registering would, again, be because its 'there' from when it is travelling on the bundled corridor amongst all the others, not because of any special uniqueness in its design.

[Jonas Jade]

I think some services like the 136 or other City Precincts are definitely justified in peak hour. They are for a specific crowd - city office workers who work in that region. It then provides relief to the other routes of people who might otherwise take the 130 or 150, and attracts some people who might not take the bus if the service didn't exist. The same people would likely take the same bus route back home in the afternoon.

It doesn't need to be more frequent or run all day - it's a specific service for a specific reason - it's not linehaul and is not intended to be and shouldn't be confused with the "rockets" issue where the line is intended to supplement an existing linehaul (BUZ) service.

[somebody]

The city precincts walk distance argument is bull. I don't get a dedicated city precincts service with similar span and frequency running from out the front of Oxley station, so why should they?

Because you don't live on a corridor where it has any chance of being justified.

What are you saying, that because you don't get a City Precincts service that the 136 should be culled?

It also has the advantage that it saves stop space in the inner city.

Again, the post above seems  to not acknowledge how people actually act in the real world.
That people will somehow let multiple more frequent buses pass them by in order to catch a low frequency niche route, or that people who have just missed  a niche route would wait 30min for the next one when they could be on the way and at their final destination sooner by taking the other options.

I am sure anyone who used this route "accidentally" once would learn their lesson immediately.  Deviating into Garden City, and then not stopping near the centre of the CBD would be good enough to put most people off.