Rockets esp 118, from: "Article: Drewvale is looming as a election hot spot"

[somebody]

Tough titties! If you live in a place that's completely impermeable by buses then don't go whining when none is provided!
It's an example of our "every man and his dog via south bank to the CBD" approach FAILING.

This reminds me of route 118, which effectively only really serves that one estate in Heathwood.  Realistically, they should be either catching route 465 to Richlands Station and transferring or catching the 534 to Forest Lake and transferring onto either routes 100 or 460/1.

In the words of tramtrain...118 CUT!! (??)

Surprised to hear you saying that re: 118.  It also serves Forest Lake doesn't it?  On paper it seems to make sense to me.  Is there any reason to think this one should go?

[STB]

Tough titties! If you live in a place that's completely impermeable by buses then don't go whining when none is provided!
It's an example of our "every man and his dog via south bank to the CBD" approach FAILING.

This reminds me of route 118, which effectively only really serves that one estate in Heathwood.  Realistically, they should be either catching route 465 to Richlands Station and transferring or catching the 534 to Forest Lake and transferring onto either routes 100 or 460/1.

In the words of tramtrain...118 CUT!! (??)

Surprised to hear you saying that re: 118.  It also serves Forest Lake doesn't it?  On paper it seems to make sense to me.  Is there any reason to think this one should go?

It does, but they do have access to a BUZ route nowadays (route 100) and have extra services heading to Richlands station.  The 118 does go a bit of a roundabout way, and I think it actually takes slightly longer than catching a 100 or a service to the Richlands Railway station IIRC.

I don't think the those services were around when the 118 started up, but now they are there, I think it'd be worth a shot at getting rid of the 118 and having them go via Richlands or catch route 100 via route 465/534.

[Gazza]

The 118 could exist, but it just needs to be redesigned as a rail feeder/BUZ 100 feeder.

Certainly no good reason for it to go to the CBD!

[STB]

The 118 could exist, but it just needs to be redesigned as a rail feeder/BUZ 100 feeder.

Certainly no good reason for it to go to the CBD!

I know we are getting off topic (perhaps start a new thread?) but couldn't they just get the 462/465/534 and interchange, and upgrade the frequency of those routes to get them to Richlands station or Forest Lake?  Or here's something radical (at least from me), extend the 100 to that estate in Heathwood and do a one way loop through the estate and out again back to Forest Lake Shops before terminating?

[somebody]

Tough titties! If you live in a place that's completely impermeable by buses then don't go whining when none is provided!
It's an example of our "every man and his dog via south bank to the CBD" approach FAILING.

This reminds me of route 118, which effectively only really serves that one estate in Heathwood.  Realistically, they should be either catching route 465 to Richlands Station and transferring or catching the 534 to Forest Lake and transferring onto either routes 100 or 460/1.

In the words of tramtrain...118 CUT!! (??)

Surprised to hear you saying that re: 118.  It also serves Forest Lake doesn't it?  On paper it seems to make sense to me.  Is there any reason to think this one should go?

It does, but they do have access to a BUZ route nowadays (route 100) and have extra services heading to Richlands station.  The 118 does go a bit of a roundabout way, and I think it actually takes slightly longer than catching a 100 or a service to the Richlands Railway station IIRC.

I don't think the those services were around when the 118 started up, but now they are there, I think it'd be worth a shot at getting rid of the 118 and having them go via Richlands or catch route 100 via route 465/534.

Nup!  Every I/B trip on the 118 is several minutes faster to the CBD than the 100, at least from the timetable.  South Bank?  Not sure but you could transfer at Mt Gravatt.  It also provides a cross town function as a secondary benefit, and a Parliament service.  O/B is closer, but there is still an advantage with the 118.

http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/111031-100,N100,118.pdf

The 118 could exist, but it just needs to be redesigned as a rail feeder/BUZ 100 feeder.

Certainly no good reason for it to go to the CBD!

Perhaps because that is where a number of people are going?

I know we are getting off topic (perhaps start a new thread?) but couldn't they just get the 462/465/534 and interchange, and upgrade the frequency of those routes to get them to Richlands station or Forest Lake?  Or here's something radical (at least from me), extend the 100 to that estate in Heathwood and do a one way loop through the estate and out again back to Forest Lake Shops before terminating?

Seems to slow it down to Forest Lake Shops significantly.  Either way to get this to serve Heathwood means there has to be a double back.  I don't see the need.  In fact, I'm inclined to remove the Kensington Way stop for this reason.

If there is a route in the area which should go that is 461.

[Gazza]

Dude, its an average bit of suburbia miles from the CBD, it doesn't deserve a dedicated rocket like that just because it can save a measly few minutes.

I'm sure my Oxley all stopper could be several minutes faster if it didn't stop all stations. But I don't get that, do I?
Corinda lost its express services. Boo hoo.

Similarly, I bet with the Mandurah/Joondaulp lines if they ran a parallel bus from some point non stop it would beat out the train by a little bit.

Perhaps because that is where a number of people are going?

Yeah, and they should be using the expensive rail line and BUZ that have been provided for them. Take it or leave it.

[somebody]

Dude, its an average bit of suburbia miles from the CBD, it doesn't deserve a dedicated rocket like that just because it can save a measly few minutes.

I'm sure my Oxley all stopper could be several minutes faster if it didn't stop all stations. But I don't get that, do I?
Corinda lost its express services. Boo hoo.

Similarly, I bet with the Mandurah/Joondaulp lines if they ran a parallel bus from some point non stop it would beat out the train by a little bit.

Perhaps because that is where a number of people are going?

Yeah, and they should be using the expensive rail line and BUZ that have been provided for them. Take it or leave it.

Sigh.

Those that currently use the 118 would then either:
(a) drive
(b) use the 100 which is going to be more expensive to provide seats on
(c) use the 465 and connect at Richlands

I see (c) as incredibly unlikely.

I thought we were trying to promote PT?

[Gazza]

Sigh.

Yawn.

Those that currently use the 118 would then either:
(a) drive
(b) use the 100 which is going to be more expensive to provide seats on
(c) use the 465 and connect at Richlands

I see (c) as incredibly unlikely.

I thought we were trying to promote PT?

There is more than one way to attract people to use PT. Each way has its own costs associated. It's like, P&R attracts PT use, and even though getting more people on PT is a good thing, its not the most cost effective method.

My point is you could pick any subdivision in Brisbane reasonably close to an aterial rd/motorway and run a rocket/bullet bus on it, but we cant do that everywhere? Again, it comes back to the fact that if the area already has a rail line and a BUZ they are pretty well served and the resources could go towards areas that have no good services at all. (Including areas of the GC and SC)

I'd contest that the 100 is more expensive to provide seats on. On the return trip, it will be carrying pax and collecting fares.
The 118 will be running dead.

It's akin to the situation on the Ipswich line, when trains could be carrying pax counter peak, but don't.

I find it hard to believe that the current deployment of the 118 buses is the most effective way for them to be winning PT usage.

[#Metro]

The cost of peak only service, Human Transit, page 80 -

- need for many driver shifts to end where they began (dead running)
- bus is only used for a few hours per day (and cost $500 000 - $1 million per bus to buy), including the bus park land to store it on
- labour costs

p83 is a good read too.

[#Metro]

I'd contest that the 100 is more expensive to provide seats on. On the return trip, it will be carrying pax and collecting fares.
The 118 will be running dead.

I think BUZ 100 has been a major success, straight down Ipswich Road. I had the experience of being at Mater Hill in Nov last year at about 6pm. The 100 came around the corner, and I kid you not, you could NOT fit one more person on that bus. There was a huge queue for it and the driver had to shut the door and turn people away. I've also seen people cross busy arterial roads and sit at lonesome bus stops to get at the frequency.

None of that ever happened before it was BUZZed.

[STB]

Sigh.

Yawn.

Those that currently use the 118 would then either:
(a) drive
(b) use the 100 which is going to be more expensive to provide seats on
(c) use the 465 and connect at Richlands

I see (c) as incredibly unlikely.

I thought we were trying to promote PT?

There is more than one way to attract people to use PT. Each way has its own costs associated. It's like, P&R attracts PT use, and even though getting more people on PT is a good thing, its not the most cost effective method.

My point is you could pick any subdivision in Brisbane reasonably close to an aterial rd/motorway and run a rocket/bullet bus on it, but we cant do that everywhere? Again, it comes back to the fact that if the area already has a rail line and a BUZ they are pretty well served and the resources could go towards areas that have no good services at all. (Including areas of the GC and SC)

I'd contest that the 100 is more expensive to provide seats on. On the return trip, it will be carrying pax and collecting fares.
The 118 will be running dead.

It's akin to the situation on the Ipswich line, when trains could be carrying pax counter peak, but don't.

I find it hard to believe that the current deployment of the 118 buses is the most effective way for them to be winning PT usage.

I concur with Gazza on this.  The 118 existed before the BUZ and Richlands came online, this particular estate in Heathwood is within the catchment for both the BUZ in particular and the rail via route 462 and 465.  I'm not comfy with them having a dedicated rocket which in reality only really services this little development and not much else.

[somebody]

I'd contest that the 100 is more expensive to provide seats on. On the return trip, it will be carrying pax and collecting fares.
The 118 will be running dead.

Yeah well the 100 I/B runs every 10 minutes 6:10am-6:40am, 5 minutes 6:40am-7:20am back to every 10 minutes 7:20am-9am ex-Forest Lake Village + 1 short working starting at Inala, for a total of 4+8+10+1 = 23 trips.  O/B it runs every 15 minutes, no more.  So over the same period (2h50m) there are 8 2/3 O/B trips.  So 14 of the 100s are heading O/B running dead.

This point is completely wrong.

My point is you could pick any subdivision in Brisbane reasonably close to an aterial rd/motorway and run a rocket/bullet bus on it, but we cant do that everywhere? Again, it comes back to the fact that if the area already has a rail line and a BUZ they are pretty well served and the resources could go towards areas that have no good services at all. (Including areas of the GC and SC)

I wouldn't say that this area has a rail line.  Feeders are poor, and Park and Ride doesn't really meet demand.

There are many routes which have less reason for existing than this one.  e.g. 151, 217, 344, 457, 66(ducks).

Yawn

Concur.

I concur with Gazza on this.  The 118 existed before the BUZ and Richlands came online, this particular estate in Heathwood is within the catchment for both the BUZ in particular and the rail via route 462 and 465.  I'm not comfy with them having a dedicated rocket which in reality only really services this little development and not much else.

I'd want to see morning loading stats on this one.  And Heathwood isn't served by the BUZ, unless you count a 1.5km+ walk as acceptable.  I think the morning frequency on the 100 implies enough demand to justify rocket(s).

By this logic we should remove the 201 for example.

[Gazza]

Feeders are poor,

The resources of the 118 should be put towards this then.

At this point in time, I put much greater importance on all day frequent routes covering most of SEQ, than rockets. At this present time, and until we have that, any other type of allocation seems a bit unequal and unfair.

[somebody]

I have no problem with ramping up feeder buses, but there is no guarantee that killing the 118 would see that happen.

I think you'd hate Sydney.  Their focus is almost completely on peak.

I think you'll have a lot of trouble convincing people to use PT off peak if they aren't happily using it in peak.

[Gazza]

I think you'd hate Sydney.  Their focus is almost completely on peak.

Well of course, peak hour focus generally results in poor outcomes.

Their network is nothing too special either, and I think a lot of their mode share is generated by the fact traffic is so bad, and not so much because its actually well designed...
If people liked it, you wouldn't see stuff like this happening:  http://www.transportpublicinquiry.com.au/ & http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&ei=-1AjT9XiBoLBiQehp6XwBA&ved=0CBoQvwUoAQ&q=sydney+morning+herald+public+transport+inquiry&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a679a959c75e47e0&biw=1920&bih=922

Do you like Sydneys bus network?

[somebody]

Do you like Sydneys bus network?

It's less illogical than Brisbane's but they won't pay for weekend frequencies, and it's even worse evenings (7 days).

[Gazza]

But "less illogical" doesn't translate into it being best pratice, or even 'good'.

[somebody]

Ignoring a fares/ticketing system which is approaching world's worst practice, Sydney's buses are pretty good in peak hour.  It's the fares/ticketing which holds back Sydney in peak hour.  It's tight fistedness as well which holds it back off peak.

There's a reason why Sydney has a peak PT use in excess of the Tri-State area of New York, Ottawa, Vancouver, and the vaunted Toronto.  Not to mention the rest of Australia.  It's not just traffic congestion, although that is a factor.

[#Metro]

Sydney is rubbish.

There's a reason why Sydney has a peak PT use in excess of the Tri-State area of New York, Ottawa, Vancouver, and the vaunted Toronto.  Not to mention the rest of Australia.  It's not just traffic congestion, although that is a factor.

Sydney has chosen a saturation policy - saturate every corner with train stations (300+ stations), saturate the urban fabric with huge numbers of buses everywhere etc. The result? Toronto manages their huge city on 69 subway stations and operates significantly fewer bus routes than Brisbane. The budget for CityRail alone is larger than that for the entire TTC system IIRC, and the cost recovery for Toronto is much better (75% farebox vs 20-30% for Sydney) because there is less infrastructure but it is more intensively used.

The good thing about stable transit funding is that there's cash. The bad thing about stable transit funding is that there is huge liberty for waste. Many North American systems have funding tied to sales taxes- when that falls periodically, they have to grow balls and make brutal cuts. There is no room for waste! Here it is different - there is no impetus to make hard cuts and steam iron the network because the cash, once secured is stable.

[somebody]

Sydney is rubbish.

With the points I made previously, that's pretty unfair.

[Gazza]

Plus the most you pay is $3.00 CND to get anywhere and less if you use tokens or passes (Not saying I support flat fares, but even their base ticket price is less than a go card zone 1), and Canadians price levels (think wages, fuel etc) are very much like ours.

I think a lot of Brisbane could be said to be "pretty good" in peak hour too. Certainly, I can go to my station and wait 6 minutes for a train for instance.

But I thought RBoT had sort of established we need to look beyond peak.

But TT is right, they have been able to do more with less. Its not just the low mode share in Bris/Aus cities that bothers me, its the amount spent to at best achieve medicority.

A redesigned network built on some transfering ect and culling of wasteful routes may well remain static in terms of patronage to begin with, but at least it would cost taxpayers a lot less to run!

Tri-State area of New York

Careful, that's a big area and not all of it is urbanised.

[achiruel]

Sydney has chosen a saturation policy - saturate every corner with train stations (300+ stations)

307 stations is the entire CityRail network.  There's a lot of stations outside the metro (i.e. beyond Berowra/Waterfall/Macarthur/Emu Plains) - 132 by my count.  So there's only 175 stations within the metro area, which I hardly think is excessive for a city of ~4.5 million people. NYC subway has 421 stations for a population of ~8.1 million.

[somebody]

I think the difference is that there are a lot of cases in Brisbane where it is no faster to use PT in peak hour.  In most cases it is different in Sydney, at least heading to the major nodes.

[Gazza]

I think the difference is that there are a lot of cases in Brisbane where it is no faster to use PT in peak hour.  In most cases it is different in Sydney, at least heading to the major nodes.

When was it decided that making trips faster for a couple of hours morning and night was a major aim.

Still not sure why we should emulate Sydney. It's like "well, they still stink, but they are better than us at least, so let's copy their practices"

CityRail gets the most suburban pax right? Should we copy cityrail too?

[SurfRail]

I'd like a 718 rocket from Carrara to Riverside, because it would save me having to walk or change services.

It's not even twice the distance of the 118 and you'd be able to pick up people who don't like transferring – bargain!

[somebody]

I think the difference is that there are a lot of cases in Brisbane where it is no faster to use PT in peak hour.  In most cases it is different in Sydney, at least heading to the major nodes.

When was it decided that making trips faster for a couple of hours morning and night was a major aim.

Still not sure why we should emulate Sydney. It's like "well, they still stink, but they are better than us at least, so let's copy their practices"

CityRail gets the most suburban pax right? Should we copy cityrail too?

Well, for both operating cost and market penetration reasons.

We should emulate Sydney's superior frequency and all express services to several locations like Campbelltown, Auburn and beyond, lower northern line etc.  Not so much its other aspects.  The main problem with Cityrail is that they don't go far enough.  QR are inferior IMO.

I'd like a 718 rocket from Carrara to Riverside, because it would save me having to walk or change services.

Not comparable.  That covers most of the Gold Coast line, as you know.

[Gazza]

The 718 proposal looks even more cost effecitve when you look at the running times, and hence driver wages.

118 takes 54 minutes.

718 is probably not gonna take too much longer, say 10-20 mins extra max, because it gets to use the T2 lanes and Busway, and could possibly be faster than the train north of Beenleigh. (Heck south of Beenleigh even, train averages 90 km/h, bus would do 100 km/h.

I would suggest the 718 goes to city precincts, because thats too far for GC train pax to walk from Roma St/Central.

Not comparable.  That covers most of the Gold Coast line, as you know.

Similarly, the 118 shadows most of the SE Busway....Its not like it's getting pax on the Logan Motorway stretch.

[BrizCommuter]

Hino Poncho


TransLink should buy a stack of these (or similar buses) for urban sprawl services.

They are operationally inflexible, virtually as expensive to run (major cost is labour - driver/mechanics), usually underpowered for the terrain they need to get over, uncomfortable for passengers (crap suspension, slow).  Basically there is no reason anybody has ever come up with to convince me why minibuses make sense for urban transit in SEQ.  Anything a minibus can do a 12.5 metre bus can do, unless the roads are too small - in which case you make sure the roads are the right size in future and buy short wheel-base buses to cope instead of minis.

We had minibuses everywhere in SEQ 5 years ago, and now they are all gone bar the very small number of low floor ones and a handful which still live on the Sunshine Coast and in the Redlands.  They were universally hated - clapped out, gutless, hard to drive, poorly suited to local conditions and they have awkward low-entry arrangements.  Things have improved markedly since the introduction of proper rear engined full-length buses.

Everywhere is different (public light buses work wonders in Hong Kong), but I think they have been tested quite satisfactorily here and have comprehensively failed.

Midi buses are extremely popular in the UK, which allows low density housing estates to be served at half-decent frequencies.

[somebody]

The 718 proposal looks even more cost effecitve when you look at the running times, and hence driver wages.

118 takes 54 minutes.

718 is probably not gonna take too much longer, say 10-20 mins extra max, because it gets to use the T2 lanes and Busway, and could possibly be faster than the train north of Beenleigh. (Heck south of Beenleigh even, train averages 90 km/h, bus would do 100 km/h.

I would suggest the 718 goes to city precincts, because thats too far for GC train pax to walk from Roma St/Central.

Not comparable.  That covers most of the Gold Coast line, as you know.

Similarly, the 118 shadows most of the SE Busway....Its not like it's getting pax on the Logan Motorway stretch.

[#Metro]

A storm in a teacup issue.
The pathetic avaliability of public transport is as a result of the design of these estates, those who purchased properties there would have had as a factor in the sales pitch the fact that the estate/community was designed to minimise through traffic flows and would therefor be quieter.
They got what they paid for at the time, if they now no longer like it they can move out to somewhere where there is a road system that has been designed with the provision of public transport in mind.
The same problem will rear its ugly head in Springfield and a number of other developments over time for exactly the same reason. Pathetic planning to maximise the number of blocks that can be sold off rather than a sustainable community that provides for the mobility of those resident there using public transport.

I don't think there is enough park and ride at Springfield. Putting a bus down there is very restricted and is also not exactly the fastest choice due to the road layouts.

E.g. how are people in Jasper way going to get PT?

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Springfield+Lakes,&ll=-27.666891,152.91545&spn=0.004694,0.00927&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=Springfield+Lakes+Queensland&gl=au&t=h&z=17

[Arnz]

Hino Poncho


TransLink should buy a stack of these (or similar buses) for urban sprawl services.

They are operationally inflexible, virtually as expensive to run (major cost is labour - driver/mechanics), usually underpowered for the terrain they need to get over, uncomfortable for passengers (crap suspension, slow).  Basically there is no reason anybody has ever come up with to convince me why minibuses make sense for urban transit in SEQ.  Anything a minibus can do a 12.5 metre bus can do, unless the roads are too small - in which case you make sure the roads are the right size in future and buy short wheel-base buses to cope instead of minis.

We had minibuses everywhere in SEQ 5 years ago, and now they are all gone bar the very small number of low floor ones and a handful which still live on the Sunshine Coast and in the Redlands.  They were universally hated - clapped out, gutless, hard to drive, poorly suited to local conditions and they have awkward low-entry arrangements.  Things have improved markedly since the introduction of proper rear engined full-length buses.

Everywhere is different (public light buses work wonders in Hong Kong), but I think they have been tested quite satisfactorily here and have comprehensively failed.

Midi buses are extremely popular in the UK, which allows low density housing estates to be served at half-decent frequencies.

Minibuses (or colloquially known as Pie-carts) has been tried in most places in SEQ in the past, at reasonable frequencies. It failed in some areas (lack of patronage) or was totally inadequate/eventually led to overcrowding on trunk routes in the more populated areas.

As Surfrail said, the minibus fleet in the TransLink network has since shrunk (A small number of wheelchair accessible mini-buses survive on the Gold Coast (YourBus flexi service), Redlands and Sunshine Coast).

[Gazza]

The 718 proposal looks even more cost effecitve when you look at the running times, and hence driver wages.

118 takes 54 minutes.

718 is probably not gonna take too much longer, say 10-20 mins extra max, because it gets to use the T2 lanes and Busway, and could possibly be faster than the train north of Beenleigh. (Heck south of Beenleigh even, train averages 90 km/h, bus would do 100 km/h.

I would suggest the 718 goes to city precincts, because thats too far for GC train pax to walk from Roma St/Central.

Not comparable.  That covers most of the Gold Coast line, as you know.

Similarly, the 118 shadows most of the SE Busway....Its not like it's getting pax on the Logan Motorway stretch.

Well, what are your rules then?..That It's ok to have a bus that duplicates the start and end points of trunk route(s) , so long as it goes a route safely different and far away enough to the others so that it "looks" as though its performing a different task.

[Gazza]

Minibuses (or colloquially known as Pie-carts) has been tried in most places in SEQ in the past, at reasonable frequencies. It failed in some areas (lack of patronage) or was totally inadequate/eventually led to overcrowding on trunk routes in the more populated areas.

Also, if they want minibuses to be a success, why not use a model of bus that isn't crap?

Why havent minibuses failed in the UK and Japan? Why do they work better there?

[somebody]

The 718 proposal looks even more cost effecitve when you look at the running times, and hence driver wages.

118 takes 54 minutes.

718 is probably not gonna take too much longer, say 10-20 mins extra max, because it gets to use the T2 lanes and Busway, and could possibly be faster than the train north of Beenleigh. (Heck south of Beenleigh even, train averages 90 km/h, bus would do 100 km/h.

I would suggest the 718 goes to city precincts, because thats too far for GC train pax to walk from Roma St/Central.

Not comparable.  That covers most of the Gold Coast line, as you know.

Similarly, the 118 shadows most of the SE Busway....Its not like it's getting pax on the Logan Motorway stretch.

Well, what are your rules then?..That It's ok to have a bus that duplicates the start and end points of trunk route(s) , so long as it goes a route safely different and far away enough to the others so that it "looks" as though its performing a different task.

That certainly is OK.  Otherwise you would remove the 443, 201 and well, every other rocket.  We know that would make PT in Brisbane fail much more severely than it presently does.

[STB]

I concur with Gazza on this.  The 118 existed before the BUZ and Richlands came online, this particular estate in Heathwood is within the catchment for both the BUZ in particular and the rail via route 462 and 465.  I'm not comfy with them having a dedicated rocket which in reality only really services this little development and not much else.

I'd want to see morning loading stats on this one.  And Heathwood isn't served by the BUZ, unless you count a 1.5km+ walk as acceptable.  I think the morning frequency on the 100 implies enough demand to justify rocket(s).

By this logic we should remove the 201 for example.

What part of 'transfer' do you not understand?  Delete the 118 and you free up service KMs that can be used to boost the frequency of the 462/465, heck even the 100 and 534.   The 257 is gone for this reason, they are within a catchment where they can use other services to transfer onto services to get them into the city!  Yes, they might whinge and moan a bit, but this is mass transport, not a taxi service!

[#Metro]

Why havent minibuses failed in the UK and Japan? Why do they work better there?

A normal bus can be used pretty much everywhere. It probably costs the same to run anyway - the main issue is driver wages.
I don't see why we need to service the residents of sparseville by buying a special bus just for them that can only be used there and few places otherwise for what could easily cost $500 000 - 750 000.

There are maxi taxis everywhere and they can be used for private service when not on call. Time to get over the specific vehicle and focus on mobility.

[#Metro]

What part of 'transfer' do you not understand?  Delete the 118 and you free up service KMs that can be used to boost the frequency of the 462/465, heck even the 100 and 534.   The 257 is gone for this reason, they are within a catchment where they can use other services to transfer onto services to get them into the city!  Yes, they might whinge and moan a bit, but this is mass transport, not a taxi service!

CUT !!

[achiruel]

Before deciding to cut the 118, shouldn't the loadings be examined?  If each 118 is running at or near to full, there's not a lot of point trying to transfer them on to a different bus.  Also I don't think there is a need to increase 100 frequency during the time the 118 runs, it is already running every 5-10 minutes then.  Of course if the 118 is carrying on average < 40 passengers, I would agree with cutting it.

[SurfRail]

Also, if they want minibuses to be a success, why not use a model of bus that isn't crap?

Why havent minibuses failed in the UK and Japan? Why do they work better there?

Terrain generally.  Minibuses in SEQ were used on sparsely populated or less frequent routes, which often involve steep hills, especially on the 2 coasts.  (In many cases, the routes they were used on merit a full length bus anyway.)  There aren't too many buses that small that have enough power to do the job.

If you need a shorter vehicle, you buy a short wheel-base bus (ie 11m instead of 12.5m - same chassis and body, just shorter), or you buy something like a Bustech MDi (10m).  Transit Australia Group has plenty of MDis in its fleet, including some down here and on the Sunshine Coast, but mainly in their regional operations up north.

[somebody]

I concur with Gazza on this.  The 118 existed before the BUZ and Richlands came online, this particular estate in Heathwood is within the catchment for both the BUZ in particular and the rail via route 462 and 465.  I'm not comfy with them having a dedicated rocket which in reality only really services this little development and not much else.

I'd want to see morning loading stats on this one.  And Heathwood isn't served by the BUZ, unless you count a 1.5km+ walk as acceptable.  I think the morning frequency on the 100 implies enough demand to justify rocket(s).

By this logic we should remove the 201 for example.

What part of 'transfer' do you not understand?  Delete the 118 and you free up service KMs that can be used to boost the frequency of the 462/465, heck even the 100 and 534.   The 257 is gone for this reason, they are within a catchment where they can use other services to transfer onto services to get them into the city!  Yes, they might whinge and moan a bit, but this is mass transport, not a taxi service!

Much of the 118's catchment isn't even on the 462/465 route.

At least the 257 had reportedly low loadings.

When there was a poll on "BUZ 100 or 101", the 101 got no real support.  People wanted the run through to the CBD.

Do you just like to disagree with me?  When I was making the opposite argument re: the 344 you took the opposite position.  There are so many less useful routes in Brisbane than the 118.

Before deciding to cut the 118, shouldn't the loadings be examined?  If each 118 is running at or near to full, there's not a lot of point trying to transfer them on to a different bus.  Also I don't think there is a need to increase 100 frequency during the time the 118 runs, it is already running every 5-10 minutes then.  Of course if the 118 is carrying on average < 40 passengers, I would agree with cutting it.

Yes.