Nominate deadwood routes for review!

[#Metro]

A service is definitely required.  The portion of Main Street where it is really needed is too remote from the ferry terminals or the busway.  I think extending the 29 to the RBWH (bypassing Brunswick Street) would work well here

Ooh! Now that's an idea.

Although the 29 has an incompatible profile - seasonal variation and frequency that's very high.
475 termination at the Gabba might be the go, although that doesn't run to RBWH. And the 29 idea is attractive.

[#Metro]

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/11/connections-vs-complexity.html

[somebody]

There is also the 227 along Shafston Av for the northern part.

I agree on the need for something, but does it really need to be a city via Valley service?

29 to RBH?  I see flying pigs TBH.

A service is definitely required.  The portion of Main Street where it is really needed is too remote from the ferry terminals or the busway.  I think extending the 29 to the RBWH (bypassing Brunswick Street) would work well here

Ooh! Now that's an idea.

Although the 29 has an incompatible profile - seasonal variation and frequency that's very high.
475 termination at the Gabba might be the go, although that doesn't run to RBWH. And the 29 idea is attractive.

I think RBH-Valley-Story Bridge-Gabba-PAH would be the go.  You would be able to interchange to the busway at PAH with such a route if you wanted to.  

I'm a bit confused by bypassing Brunswick St though.

[SurfRail]

A service is definitely required.  The portion of Main Street where it is really needed is too remote from the ferry terminals or the busway.  I think extending the 29 to the RBWH (bypassing Brunswick Street) would work well here

Ooh! Now that's an idea.

Although the 29 has an incompatible profile - seasonal variation and frequency that's very high.
475 termination at the Gabba might be the go, although that doesn't run to RBWH. And the 29 idea is attractive.

Much as we generally loathe to suggest such things, you could just split the 29 into a Gabba terminating service and renumber/extend say every second run to RBWH under a different route number.  Both would likely be seasonal, but you would just not run the extras during the break.  There is plenty of density and activity along Kangaroo Point and northern Woolloongabba (hospitals, education, resi towers etc) to support say a 15 min service, particularly when it offers a single seat trip from the northside to UQ without mucking around in the CBD or at the CC.

You could also have a stop somewhere between St Pauls Tce and Ann St to allow interchanging to other routes at nearby existing stops.

[somebody]

You could also have a stop somewhere between St Pauls Tce and Ann St to allow interchanging to other routes at nearby existing stops.

That's just one reason why I favour serving Brunswick St between St Pauls Tce and Wickham St in both directions.

[SurfRail]

You could also have a stop somewhere between St Pauls Tce and Ann St to allow interchanging to other routes at nearby existing stops.

That's just one reason why I favour serving Brunswick St between St Pauls Tce and Wickham St in both directions.

In an ideal world, yes.  In reality, doing that would cause issues, particularly with navigating the southbound route through Warner or Ballow Streets in peak hour.  Going direct down Barry Pde and Gipps St would make the trip much faster.

There is already a bus stop heading southbound along Barry Pde, you could presumably just add one on the other side - no call for it at present due to the way existing routes go.  Neither is a significantly greater walk than the stops on Brunswick Street outside the station (maybe 200-300m tops or about double), and both would in fact be closer than the combined 301/310/315/320 outbound stop on St Pauls Tce.

[somebody]

In spite of there being some logic to that, I just don't reckon you are going to get people walking from the stops outside Metro to Gipps St/Barry Pde.  And vice versa.

I don't see what is so hard about running via Warner St.

[#Metro]

I would like to nominate routes 425 (Chapel Hill) and Route 417 (Long Pocket) and 430 (Fig Tree Pocket) for review.

Chapel Hill services could be replaced with a cross-town frequent UQ-Indro-Chapel Hill service.
417 Long Pocket could be cut back to Indooroopilly interchange and or Toowong. Pax could transfer to Indoooroopilly rail or BUZ 400 / BUZ 444 / P88
430 could be terminated at Indooroopilly and turned back for higher frequency.

[somebody]

I would like to nominate routes 425 (Chapel Hill) and Route 417 (Long Pocket) and 430 (Fig Tree Pocket) for review.

Chapel Hill services could be replaced with a cross-town frequent UQ-Indro-Chapel Hill service.
417 Long Pocket could be cut back to Indooroopilly interchange and or Toowong. Pax could transfer to Indoooroopilly rail or BUZ 400 / BUZ 444 / P88
430 could be terminated at Indooroopilly and turned back for higher frequency.

No on 417 cut back to Indooroopilly interchange.  Toowong - maybe.

430 - I could accept that one.  It isn't very busy.

425 - I nominate it for BUZ.

[SurfRail]

430 could be terminated at Indooroopilly and turned back for higher frequency.

Likewise 435.

There is only a single 436 per day - get rid of it.

[#Metro]

425 - I nominate it for BUZ.

Disagree. Frequency is expensive to provide, thus from indro a BUZ 444 / BUZ 400 / P 88 and already gives a bus every 5 minutes plus you have the welfare route 445 and 443 (delete one of these) that's more than enough frequency and capacity down Coronation Drive, not to mention the 411 and 412 on top of that as well.

425 should be amalgamated into a frequent crosstown UQ-Indro-Chapel Hill route.
Perhaps only during peak hour should a rocket to the CBD appear.

A lot of UQ students also live in Chapel Hill. One seat ride for them..

[#Metro]

I nominate

UQ 427 / 428 - what is with the way it splits into parallel streets when it gets off Swann Road? What is the purpose of that.
Time to perhaps relax the coverage regulation...

[somebody]

I nominate

UQ 427 / 428 - what is with the way it splits into parallel streets when it gets off Swann Road? What is the purpose of that.
Time to perhaps relax the coverage regulation...

Yes, just have one way of doing it.

If the station stop could be on Westminster Rd instead of Lambert Rd Central Ave wouldn't be needed at all, but that is probably pie in the sky.

There is only a single 436 per day - get rid of it.

In Sydney X97 and X99 only run twice a day, inbound only, but serve quite a number of passengers.  Who is to say that doesn't apply here?  Probably doesn't, but my point is that just because there aren't many trips on a rocket isn't a reason in and of itself to get rid of it.

[Jonas Jade]

I nominate

UQ 427 / 428 - what is with the way it splits into parallel streets when it gets off Swann Road? What is the purpose of that.
Time to perhaps relax the coverage regulation...

Not sure the point of that variation.

I say merged with the 425, frequency upgraded and routing simplified!

[SurfRail]

In Sydney X97 and X99 only run twice a day, inbound only, but serve quite a number of passengers.  Who is to say that doesn't apply here?  Probably doesn't, but my point is that just because there aren't many trips on a rocket isn't a reason in and of itself to get rid of it.

Sounds like a fantastic reason to get rid of it.  Just convert it to another 435.

[somebody]

In Sydney X97 and X99 only run twice a day, inbound only, but serve quite a number of passengers.  Who is to say that doesn't apply here?  Probably doesn't, but my point is that just because there aren't many trips on a rocket isn't a reason in and of itself to get rid of it.

Sounds like a fantastic reason to get rid of it.  Just convert it to another 435.

I thought you wanted to truncate the 435 at Indro?  Then (as far as we know) a full bus emptying and then getting on a different bus?

[HappyTrainGuy]

DON'T TOUCH OUR BELOVED 314!!! 

[Mr X]

What are the loadings for the 314 actually like?  

Even if it was free, it still might get no passengers

[Jonas Jade]

314 BUZ?

[Arnz]

Route 529 BUZ Ftw 

[#Metro]

314 BUZ?

HOURLY services. Ha! It would be faster to walk there, you'd actually be able to catch all trains by walking!
One way LOOPS as well. Argh!

Jarret Walker's book frowns on loops,  on low frequency and on one way services. Services in this region are all three!

CUT!! LOOPS!

[Fares_Fair]

314 BUZ?

HOURLY services. Ha! It would be faster to walk there, you'd actually be able to catch all trains by walking!
One way LOOPS as well. Argh!

Jarret Walker's book frowns on loops,  on low frequency and on one way services. Services in this region are all three!

CUT!! LOOPS!

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater ...
A loop (No. 639) is the ONLY service that Palmwoods has on the Sunshine Coast !!!
http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/051211_639.pdf

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[#Metro]

I also note that given the street geometry, it is going to be hard for a bus to be a) accessible to everyone or most people, b) direct and fast, c) frequent. Some streets will be left out. All the more reason for bicycles and some provision for park and ride at stations.

I think services would be better if they were made longer and connected to relevant main centres in the area- in this case this would be Westfield Strathpine and Westfield Chermside.

Indeed, a bus from Chermside to Shorncliffe via Handford Road might work.

[#Metro]

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater ...
A loop (No. 639) is the ONLY service that Palmwoods has on the Sunshine Coast !!!

I think a multi-story park and ride carpark at Nambour would work well to cover those areas.
Charge a small fee for it / GoCard access so that people who don't have decent bus access benefit from it.

[HappyTrainGuy]

What are the loadings for the 314 actually like?  

Even if it was free, it still might get no passengers

Do they even have bus stop signs along the whole route or is it a hail and ride haha.

I quite like loop routes as long as they feed into major interchanges and railway lines. Once heavy rail to Kippa Ring is up the multiple loop services around that area should be pretty epic feeder services considering they are already run on a 30 minute week day frequency (http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/111128-693,694,696,697.pdf - That's how loop services should be run! Its not perfect but its better than what they have done to other loop routes).

VIA LA TRANSLINK!

[#Metro]

I quite like loop routes as long as they feed into major interchanges and railway lines. Once heavy rail to Kippa Ring is up the multiple loop services around that area should be pretty epic feeder services considering they are already run on a 30 minute week day frequency (http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/111128-693,694,696,697.pdf - That's how loop services should be run! Its not perfect but its better than what they have done to other loop routes).

I dislike loops, a lot. Human Transit goes into this in depth.

[Mr X]

Two way loops can be useful. One way loops like 198- not so useful.

Would 198 be more popular if a counter way loop (eg. 197 or whatever) was introduced?

[somebody]

I quite like loop routes as long as they feed into major interchanges and railway lines. Once heavy rail to Kippa Ring is up the multiple loop services around that area should be pretty epic feeder services considering they are already run on a 30 minute week day frequency (http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/111128-693,694,696,697.pdf - That's how loop services should be run! Its not perfect but its better than what they have done to other loop routes).

Hmm, doesn't even tie into a rail station.  Local trips only!

[SurfRail]

I quite like loop routes as long as they feed into major interchanges and railway lines. Once heavy rail to Kippa Ring is up the multiple loop services around that area should be pretty epic feeder services considering they are already run on a 30 minute week day frequency (http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/111128-693,694,696,697.pdf - That's how loop services should be run! Its not perfect but its better than what they have done to other loop routes).

Hmm, doesn't even tie into a rail station.  Local trips only!

Which would no doubt change once Kippa-Ring is built.

The 696 and 697 are quite reasonably patronised for what they are.  The 660 and 680 are routinely hammered due to low frequency and short span of hours - both could quite easily sustain 15 minute headways until after dark.

[SurfRail]

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater ...
A loop (No. 639) is the ONLY service that Palmwoods has on the Sunshine Coast !!!

I think a multi-story park and ride carpark at Nambour would work well to cover those areas.
Charge a small fee for it / GoCard access so that people who don't have decent bus access benefit from it.

Doubt it.  For a start, there is not exactly a shortage of parking at stations along the line south of Nambour, and if there is it would be cheaper to just grade some adjacent rail land.  Furthermore, this is the only bus available to the people who don't drive, which I would expect for a place like Palmwoods to be in the order of maybe 30% or higher.  (People without a licence on the Gold Coast - ie can't drive, not just don't have a car - is around 33% of total population.)

[#Metro]

Two way loops can be useful. One way loops like 198- not so useful.

Would 198 be more popular if a counter way loop (eg. 197 or whatever) was introduced?

You know what my position on route 198 is, and it is not flattering 

CUT!!

[#Metro]

Doubt it.  For a start, there is not exactly a shortage of parking at stations along the line south of Nambour, and if there is it would be cheaper to just grade some adjacent rail land.  Furthermore, this is the only bus available to the people who don't drive, which I would expect for a place like Palmwoods to be in the order of maybe 30% or higher.  (People without a licence on the Gold Coast - ie can't drive, not just don't have a car - is around 33% of total population.)

Separate the categories. For those who don't have a bus (or it is too inconvenient), give them a parking space.

[SurfRail]

I thought you wanted to truncate the 435 at Indro?  Then (as far as we know) a full bus emptying and then getting on a different bus?

Getting on a train, ideally.

BT is also still looking into the availability of more high capacity vehicles.  These can operate the core routes exclusively if enough are delivered.

I can tell you that there will be no more of the 14.5m B12BLEs, because the chassis has been discontinued.  However, Volvo is still the current contract-holder and so I understand something will be worked out between them and BT in the near future, although what that is I could only speculate.

[SurfRail]

Doubt it.  For a start, there is not exactly a shortage of parking at stations along the line south of Nambour, and if there is it would be cheaper to just grade some adjacent rail land.  Furthermore, this is the only bus available to the people who don't drive, which I would expect for a place like Palmwoods to be in the order of maybe 30% or higher.  (People without a licence on the Gold Coast - ie can't drive, not just don't have a car - is around 33% of total population.)

Separate the categories. For those who don't have a bus (or it is too inconvenient), give them a parking space.

Again you think there is a bottomless pit of money to build these parking stations.  Even amortising the cost by recovering parking fees over decades is a very unproductive use of funds compared to investing the funds in PT upfront.

There is plenty of inefficiency in the network, but I wouldn't be singling out the 639 as an example.  It is actually a reasonable use of the funds for what it does – provides exceptionally good coverage of Nambour for people needing to visit the medical precinct and shops and for whom time is not always the prime factor.  You have faster services for that (610, train etc).

[#Metro]

Again you think there is a bottomless pit of money to build these parking stations.  Even amortising the cost by recovering parking fees over decades is a very unproductive use of funds compared to investing the funds in PT upfront.

There is plenty of inefficiency in the network, but I wouldn't be singling out the 639 as an example.  It is actually a reasonable use of the funds for what it does – provides exceptionally good coverage of Nambour for people needing to visit the medical precinct and shops and for whom time is not always the prime factor.  You have faster services for that (610, train etc).

Yes, but park and ride is a coverage measure in this case. The road geometry and connectivity is simply such that buses have to operate in loops.
It's not trying to make money, just like your loop buses aren't trying to make a profit either, even though they charge fares.

Yes it costs money, but what doesn't? I'm sure the bus would be cheaper if it had no roof or paint job too.
The charge is there to stop people who have decent alternatives from using the car park.

Surely, at this extreme (100 km +) from the Brisbane CBD, Park and Ride is undeniably appropriate.

Simple much?

[somebody]

Again you think there is a bottomless pit of money to build these parking stations.  Even amortising the cost by recovering parking fees over decades is a very unproductive use of funds compared to investing the funds in PT upfront.

There is plenty of inefficiency in the network, but I wouldn't be singling out the 639 as an example.  It is actually a reasonable use of the funds for what it does – provides exceptionally good coverage of Nambour for people needing to visit the medical precinct and shops and for whom time is not always the prime factor.  You have faster services for that (610, train etc).

Yes, but park and ride is a coverage measure in this case. The road geometry and connectivity is simply such that buses have to operate in loops.
It's not trying to make money, just like your loop buses aren't trying to make a profit either, even though they charge fares.

Yes it costs money, but what doesn't? I'm sure the bus would be cheaper if it had no roof or paint job too.
The charge is there to stop people who have decent alternatives from using the car park.

Surely, at this extreme (100 km +) from the Brisbane CBD, Park and Ride is undeniably appropriate.

Simple much?

You still need to provide coverage for those that are unable to drive, at least in many cases.

[#Metro]

You still need to provide coverage for those that are unable to drive, at least in many cases.

I never said "don't provide buses", which is curious because that's what it seems to be interpreted as when received by the ears of other people...

Park and Ride - it's not evil.

[somebody]

You still need to provide coverage for those that are unable to drive, at least in many cases.

I never said "don't provide buses", which is curious because that's what it seems to be interpreted as when received by the ears of other people...

Park and Ride - it's not evil.

I think saying that Park and Ride provides coverage is tantamount to saying "don't provide buses in certain areas".

[HappyTrainGuy]

I quite like loop routes as long as they feed into major interchanges and railway lines. Once heavy rail to Kippa Ring is up the multiple loop services around that area should be pretty epic feeder services considering they are already run on a 30 minute week day frequency (http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/111128-693,694,696,697.pdf - That's how loop services should be run! Its not perfect but its better than what they have done to other loop routes).

Hmm, doesn't even tie into a rail station.  Local trips only!

Hence why I said when heavy rail to Kippa Ring is up. The planned station is literally just across the street.

http://www.nearmap.com/?q=@-27.225641,153.084220&ll=-27.225641,153.08422&z=18&t=h&nmd=20111103

[#Metro]

I think saying that Park and Ride provides coverage is tantamount to saying "don't provide buses in certain areas".

That's your interpretation, and I think it is wrong.

Does the park and ride at 8 Mile Plains stop buses feeding into the busway? Or the park and ride at Nerang stop buses going there?
Or the park and rides at all stations along the Mandurah and Joondalup lines stop feeder bus services? Nope.

Park and Ride has a place in a integrated transport system. Of course many people have a problem
saying that. They may well hate the car for whatever reason, but that's not my problem.

Cue comments beginning with "I'm not against park and ride, but..."