Article: New CityGlider to link stadiums with entertainment precincts

[Fattious]

Also, this is suspiciously close to a certain very important electorate, isn't it?

Yes the Mount Cootha Electorate - sitting member Andrew Fraser.

7 weeks of this ahead of us, nothing but a stunt.

[Fattious]

Courier Mail / Quest Brisbane West article:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/west/new-bus-line-has-stadiums-covered/story-fn8m0u4y-1226258044651

[BrizCommuter]

I should have guessed it, going to the holy grail, Ashgrove electorate 

Doubt that has much to do with this route. The Maroon CityGlider doesn't serve any of Ashgrove electorate, as the terminus is about 500m short of the border.

[#Metro]

"This is part of council's balanced approach to reducing traffic in the inner-city by providing a route which does not travel through the CBD and which is also taking cars off the road,"

Who is doing the network planning here? Is it BCC or TL?

The second thing- if they wanted to get off cars, BulimbaGlider would be ideal- the entire suburb is one big car park!

Want to fix up non-CBD travel? Fix up the GCL!

[dwb]

 Hamilton Hovercraft?    

I quite like that idea

[BrizCommuter]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/sillyglider.html
The usual BrizCommuter negatively on Quirk's latest quirky idea.

There's a hint for the Bulimba Glider in the blog post!

[Golliwog]

I'm not all that opposed to it as there is a need for more services on the inner part of route 385. That said, this seems to suggest a complete lack of consultation with Translink/TMR. In another thread we have the mx article pointing the state is looking into modifying the CC intersection to potentially remove car/bus conflicts, yet this proposes to run a bus through the middle of it, and to start it in 6 months, with state government funding. Fat chance I say.

Also, to get my full support, this would need to change/remove some routes on the southern side or something to reduce needless duplication, though I can't really see that happening unless it serves the busway stations themselves. Though one plus is if BNE ever gets light rail, this would probably get a good first route for it.

I do however agree with Ozbob, this is a political stunt, similar to the original glider. If they say no, Newman/Quirk can say Bligh is turning her back on her own and frasers electorates. I'm also bloody sick of BCC anniucing things like this and the new buses like they're actually doing it. In both cases they turn to the State government to put the money in and do the hard yards, while BCC sits around harping on about how they're providing new buses and whatever else for Brisbane. They're meanwhile, to busy throwing their own money down tunnels under the city. Just a tad ridiculous I think.

[Gazza]

Also, this is suspiciously close to a certain very important electorate, isn't it?

Yes the Mount Cootha Electorate - sitting member Andrew Fraser.

7 weeks of this ahead of us, nothing but a stunt.

Yeah but the LNP Quirk is proposing this, so it seems odd it would be there to help Fraiser.

Anyway, the original Cityglider made sense as a route because its catchment at the ends differed a fair bit from the 199.

But this is stupid. It's like, if you're at CC and want to go to the Gabba, do you wait at CC for a 66, 200 or 100, or do you wait on grey street for a less frequent and slower Maroon Glider?

For pax to Paddo, its the city stop location issue, now in South Bris! Do you wait on Grey St for the glider, or in CC for a 385.

[#Metro]

I am against this proposal in its current form, simple because the opportunity cost is too high.
It means that Bulimba and Centenary people who have their entire suburbs parked out who are SCREAMING for decent PT options are going to miss out in favour of people who already have a bazillion options at their disposal including CITYCYCLE.

That and not to mention the terrible network planning...almost up there with the inner city metro idea...

Did they even think how this might fit into the wider network?

[HappyTrainGuy]

This new CityGlider service is almost as bad as me proposing the 314 buz... And about as popular.

[Gazza]

Just sent this letter to council:

To whom it may concern,
I am writing in response to the proposed  Maroon Cityglider from Paddington to Stones Corner.
I believe it would be a mistake to implement this bus route, because it wastefully duplicates services in an area which is already well served by multiple frequent bus routes.
Brisbane already suffers from an excessive number of routes that are often only a little bit different to each other, and continuing to stack duplicates on top of each other, wastes money and creates a network that is confusing to use and expensive to run.
The current Cityglider is effective, because the ends of the route diverge off into different areas where no other options exist, and the two complement rather than conflict.
On the other hand, this proposed Cityglider is nothing more than a virtual copy of the inner sections of the 385 BUZ and the 200 BUZ. Both of these routes link together well at Cultural Center, so it is difficult to see what a Maroon Cityglider brings to the table. It appears to have been drawn without considering how it works with the existing network.
The attached images illustrate this.
The Maroon Cityglider is flawed from a passengers perspective because its proposed routing on the Southern part runs on surface streets where it is subject to congestion, rather than using the busway.
The fact it doesn't use the busway also throws up usability issues which will limit its usefulness.
For instance, if a passenger were at Cultural Center, and you wanted the next bus to Wooloongabba, do they wait out on Grey St for a Maroon Cityglider coming every 15 minutes, or do they wait at Cultural Center for a 200, 100 or 66, which combine for an average 5 minute headway, and all follow the same legible route along the Busway, not subject to traffic delays.  It is diffcult to see why anybody would use the Cityglider!

Similar issues could occur for someone at Cultural Center wanting to catch the soonest bus to Paddington....Do they wait on Grey St for the Maroon Citygilder, or do they wait in Cultural Center station for the next 385? You can't wait in both places at once, To get the next bus would require juggling two timetables at once!

The proposal to run the Maroon Cityglider 24 hours on Fridays and Saturdays is a positive, but the exact same result could be achieved by running the additional trips on the N385, and running it on Friday nights. This would be much more cost effective than establishing an entire new 7 day a week route, which would be largely redundant anyway.
High frequency routes do bring a lot of benefits, but the long span of operation hours and number of buses needed to run makes them expensive, so why not divert the resources to places where they could benefit more people?  It is worth pointing out that in the BCC area there are suburbs with no frequent public transport whatsoever, and BCC bus routes that lack resources and leave passengers stranded and unable to board. Council should prioritise improvements to people living in these areas, rather than spending money/seeking money from Translink, on a bus route which is unneeded.
Regards
Gavin Seipelt


And these are the pics I put on the last page of my letter:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Gazza]

The sad thing is though, I bet a bunch of people will get sucked up by this proposal and the romance of it that it may well happen.

It's like, pollies/local traders get this vision that "oooh, we can go get a nice meal and see a game, and do it all on this one bus", and people might do this once in a blue moon.

But a frequent, long span, 7 day bus needs a bit more usage than that!

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

1st February 2012

Re: SEQ: Core Frequent Network: Bulimba CityGlider please!

Greetings,

Lets call a spade a spade.  The 'Maroon CityGlider' is a political stunt.

The proposed Cityglider is nothing more than a virtual copy of the inner sections of the 385 BUZ and the 200 BUZ. Both of these routes link together well at Cultural Center, so it is difficult to see what a Maroon Cityglider brings to the table. It appears to have been drawn up without considering how it works with the existing network.

If there ever was a reason as to why network planning should be removed from Brisbane City Council this is it.  It is also arguable whether a boundary constrained council should be now running public transport, particularly as it is used as political tool.

There are far more pressing needs in improving the bus frequency and hours of operation for the real Brisbane Community.  To put political expediency before community needs is very disappointing.

For more analysis of this con see --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7575.0  long discussion.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

Media release 31 January 2012

SEQ: Core Frequent Network: Bulimba CityGlider please!



RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers calls for a Bulimba CityGlider.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"RAIL Back On Track welcomes discussion about a potential new CityGlider bus service (1). We note however that the new proposed service would serve areas where there are already fast, frequent buses coming every few minutes. We believe that the CityGlider is a decent concept, however the focus should be on suburbs where high quality, high frequency services do not yet exist rather than providing more services for areas which already have decent services."

"RAIL Back On Track therefore calls for a Bulimba CityGlider to serve the world class restaurant district, movie cinema, trendy-shops and connect to the CityCat (2,3). Funding would also be easier as replacement of the 230 service would free up funds for the new Bulimba CityGlider."

"Extra Friday and Saturday night services would allow people to stay out late and enjoy late night dining in the area and support local businesses."

"We call on the Lord Mayor to reconsider his proposal for a Maroon CityGlider and instead consider a Bulimba CityGlider. The businesses, shopkeepers and residents of Bulimba experience parking crisis every day in their local streets which is impacting the livability of the area. We therefore think a Bulimba CityGlider would be a Godsend for them."

"As RAIL Back On Track has always said, services must be frequent, bottom line!"

References:

1. New CityGlider to link stadiums with entertainment precincts
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/new-cityglider-to-link-stadiums-with-entertainment-precincts-20120131-1qqc5.html

2. Bulimba needs more bus services says public transport advocate
http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/east/bulimba-needs-more-bus-
services-says-public-transport-advocate/story-fn8m0sve-1226235784817

"Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said while TransLink had the final say on bus
routes, he would throw his weight behind any move to get more
high-frequency bus services into the suburbs, particularly at busy
shopping precincts."

3. SEQ: Core Frequent Network: Bulimba/Balmoral BUZ and Centenary BUZ
should be priorities for next BUZification
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7299.0

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Good analysis Gazza.

[STB]

Okay, this I must admit is the weirdest proposal I've ever seen come out of Brisbane City Council, both internally and externally.  I don't agree with it and I would be damn certain that TransLink and the state didn't even have a clue that this route was going to come sprouting out of the BCC, as was the secrecy around the original CityGlider between BCC and TL was evident, as planners at TL told me a while back.

My suggestion, strip BCC of all transport planning powers completely, enough of the politics and snipes between the two entities as this is just pure competition now (and politics playing).  Would TL fund this? Doubt it very much.

[ozbob]

Okay, this I must admit is the weirdest proposal I've ever seen come out of Brisbane City Council, both internally and externally.  I don't agree with it and I would be damn certain that TransLink and the state didn't even have a clue that this route was going to come sprouting out of the BCC, as was the secrecy around the original CityGlider between BCC and TL was evident, as planners at TL told me a while back.

My suggestion, strip BCC of all transport planning powers completely, enough of the politics and snipes between the two entities as this is just pure competition now (and politics playing).  Would TL fund this? Doubt it very much.

Well said STB!

[Mr X]

+2
And we see it happen daily with BCC's refusal to use the standard Translink livery, too

I don't mind my taxes or rates going towards public transport, but I do mind it very much when it goes on sentimental crap like this!

[Mozz]

Well, what is it they say about the definition of insanity .... this announcement and in reality it's just an announcement, is a metaphor for all that is wrong with how bus/ferry/heavy rail public transport operates and has operated in greater Brisbane for many decades.

Buses carrying more commuters than heavy rail, buses competing with heavy rail on many many routes, overwhelming CBD centric bus routes, almost non existent focus on providing frequent bus routes feeding heavy rail, demand rather than frequency as the driver for additional services ... if we keep doing what we have always done, we will always get what we always got....if only there were some cities in the world where integrated public transport across different modes was undertaken effectively so that we might learn from their experiences ...   

[#Metro]

  Guess what is in HumanTransit this week?

http://www.humantransit.org/2012/01/the-new-route-problem.html <--- LOL
http://www.humantransit.org/07box.html

When the existing transit system doesn't seem to be meeting the needs of your organization or interest group, it's tempting to decide that you need a new route, or even a new network.  Service demands are often presented to transit agencies in the form of demands for a new route, and these are sometimes implemented even though they have a weakening effect on the whole transit network.  A good network is a set of services that are all designed to fit together and work together efficiently.  If you just add a route without rethinking the network, you're almost always reducing the overall efficiency of the network -- and thus its ability to get people where they're going.

If you currently have little or no service, then of course you can demand new service.  But if you already have a transit network and just don't find it useful for your needs, it's important to ask whether an investment in that network would help fix the problem, rather than inventing a new service that will duplicate the existing one.

Requests for new duplicative routes often arise where transit service is already running, but:

    the frequency or span of service is inadequate, or
    the existing service is hard to figure out, or
    the existing service doesn't stop exactly where you want, or
    the existing service is considered unacceptable in quality for a particular interest group's needs, or
    a connection (transfer) is required for the trip that you care about.

Let's look at each one.  At the end of this article, I'll also come back to some practical considerations.

the frequency or span of service is inadequate, or

No, there is a busway with buses every few sec and BUZ services overlapping. Night services could be provided by boosting nightlink (please boost it, half hourly to hourly waits are horrible and taxis are ridiculously expensive!)

the existing service is hard to figure out, or

No, not really. Get 385 and then catch 222 or 100 or 66. Busway is very legible.

  the existing service doesn't stop exactly where you want, or

Nope.

the existing service is considered unacceptable in quality for a particular interest group's needs, or

It is not this either - buses are already organized for most events as are special trains.

a connection (transfer) is required for the trip that you care about.

Yes, but a very weak reason IMHO.

Efficient, abundant transit networks often require connections, because you can't run direct service from everywhere to everywhere else.  This issue is discussed in Chapter 12 of Human Transit, but for a simple case study underlining the futility of new routes designed to avoid connections, see here.

Hard to see what new the Maroon CityGlider brings to the table.

[somebody]

I'd agree.  The non-standard original CityGlider was also such a reason.  It didn't consider the network as a whole but was an isolated route slapped on to the network.  Limited stops while the busier 199 is all stops through the common part!  What was that?

You realise just how dopey network design gets in Brisbane by looking at West End Junction.  You have a choice of 3 BUZ routes (196/199/Glider), all of which leave from different stops on different roads.  It wouldn't occur to anybody to just put a common stop in on Melbourne Street, and delete the first stop west of the CC too.

Indeed.  More often that not I find it quicker and easier to walk the whole way into the Cultural Centre.

Not sure about deleting the stop though.  Just remove this & other stops along here from the 199 route.

The non-standard original CityGlider was also such a reason.

Montague Road is a fast, straight arterial. I was very skeptical of the service (since no-one caught 192!) but people use it, the previous service was terrible, so that has been good.

That part isn't the problem.  The original CityGlider should have been a numbered route, all stops through West End and remove the 192.  Unless you would argue that the limited stops is a big enough benefit to justify retaining the 192.  Probably the same on the other side.  Why's the 470 still serve the Ferry?

Where exactly is Tramnies Corner?

[Gazza]

I wondered about trannies corner too, until I just googled it.

[#Metro]

That part isn't the problem.  The original CityGlider should have been a numbered route, all stops through West End and remove the 192.  Unless you would argue that the limited stops is a big enough benefit to justify retaining the 192.  Probably the same on the other side.  Why's the 470 still serve the Ferry?

Please cut 198! or at least steam it straight!

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

1st February 2012

Re: SEQ: Core Frequent Network: Bulimba CityGlider please!

Greetings,

Further to highlight how inappropriate the 'Maroon City Glider' is, see attached document.

It details why the high frequency 199 and current City Glider work and the proposed Maroon City Glider is a waste of valuable funds. Funds that should be expended on improving bus frequency and hours of operation so that people in the wider community can actually use public transport during the day and get home after work from the railway station.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

Attached document here!

Sent to all outlets:

1st February 2012

Re: SEQ: Core Frequent Network: Bulimba CityGlider please!

Greetings,

Lets call a spade a spade.  The 'Maroon CityGlider' is a political stunt.

The proposed Cityglider is nothing more than a virtual copy of the inner sections of the 385 BUZ and the 200 BUZ. Both of these routes link together well at Cultural Center, so it is difficult to see what a Maroon Cityglider brings to the table. It appears to have been drawn up without considering how it works with the existing network.

If there ever was a reason as to why network planning should be removed from Brisbane City Council this is it.  It is also arguable whether a boundary constrained council should be now running public transport, particularly as it is used as political tool.

There are far more pressing needs in improving the bus frequency and hours of operation for the real Brisbane Community.  To put political expediency before community needs is very disappointing.

For more analysis of this con see --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7575.0  long discussion.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

Media release 31 January 2012

SEQ: Core Frequent Network: Bulimba CityGlider please!



RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers calls for a Bulimba CityGlider.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"RAIL Back On Track welcomes discussion about a potential new CityGlider bus service (1). We note however that the new proposed service would serve areas where there are already fast, frequent buses coming every few minutes. We believe that the CityGlider is a decent concept, however the focus should be on suburbs where high quality, high frequency services do not yet exist rather than providing more services for areas which already have decent services."

"RAIL Back On Track therefore calls for a Bulimba CityGlider to serve the world class restaurant district, movie cinema, trendy-shops and connect to the CityCat (2,3). Funding would also be easier as replacement of the 230 service would free up funds for the new Bulimba CityGlider."

"Extra Friday and Saturday night services would allow people to stay out late and enjoy late night dining in the area and support local businesses."

"We call on the Lord Mayor to reconsider his proposal for a Maroon CityGlider and instead consider a Bulimba CityGlider. The businesses, shopkeepers and residents of Bulimba experience parking crisis every day in their local streets which is impacting the livability of the area. We therefore think a Bulimba CityGlider would be a Godsend for them."

"As RAIL Back On Track has always said, services must be frequent, bottom line!"

References:

1. New CityGlider to link stadiums with entertainment precincts
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/new-cityglider-to-link-stadiums-with-entertainment-precincts-20120131-1qqc5.html

2. Bulimba needs more bus services says public transport advocate
http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/east/bulimba-needs-more-bus-
services-says-public-transport-advocate/story-fn8m0sve-1226235784817

"Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said while TransLink had the final say on bus
routes, he would throw his weight behind any move to get more
high-frequency bus services into the suburbs, particularly at busy
shopping precincts."

3. SEQ: Core Frequent Network: Bulimba/Balmoral BUZ and Centenary BUZ
should be priorities for next BUZification
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7299.0

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[#Metro]

So much waste in the BT bus network. Like route 203, a horrible hourly service, which duplicates THREE busway stations and a Train station pretty much all within walking distance of the one street.

It details why the high frequency 199 and current City Glider work and the proposed Maroon City Glider is a waste of valuable funds.

My fares went up by 15%! I want to see value for money and decent frequency extended to areas where there isn't decent frequency already (Bulimba and Centenary).

[ozbob]

From the Couriermail Quest click here!

Maroon CityGlider "a stunt"

Maroon CityGlider "a stunt"

    by: Staff Writer, Westside News
    From: Quest Newspapers
    February 01, 2012 9:58AM

Brisbane City Council's proposed new Paddington-Stones Corner CityGlider has been slammed as a political stunt by Queensland's chief public transport lobby group.

Announced yesterday, the new bus line would link Paddington to Stones Corner 18 hours a day, and 24 hours a day on Friday and Saturday.

However, RAIL Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow said the proposed route was "nothing more than a virtual copy of the inner sections of the 385 BUZ and the 200 BUZ''.

"Both of these routes link together well at the Cultural Center, so it is difficult to see what a maroon CityGlider brings to the table.

"If there ever was a reason as to why network planning should be removed from Brisbane City Council this is it.''

He said improving bus frequency and hours of operation needed to be put first.

In September, Labor candidate for the Toowong ward Yvonne Li called for an inner-westside bus loop to link suburbs such as Rosalie and Petrie Terrace with a frequent service.

[somebody]

That part isn't the problem.  The original CityGlider should have been a numbered route, all stops through West End and remove the 192.  Unless you would argue that the limited stops is a big enough benefit to justify retaining the 192.  Probably the same on the other side.  Why's the 470 still serve the Ferry?

Please cut 198! or at least steam it straight!

It can be useful for some people.  How do you straighten a loop?

I don't think we should call for such a route to be cut.

[#Metro]

It can be useful for some people.  How do you straighten a loop?

And that is the problem - it is only useful for some people, like a taxi...


How do you straighten a loop? You get a gigantic iron on full blast to come down on it like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electric_iron_lie.jpg

and you get this.... (Route 198 - steamed)

[Fares_Fair]

I see a crease   

[#Metro]

I see a crease

*pish* *steam noises*

Yes- it may need to deviate to serve lyons parkland, but not a big deal.
That area has no proper PT at the moment, and there are some decent buildings there - muti story.

[Gazza]

Maroon CityGlider "a stunt"

Bam, direct hit!

Anyway, my question is, further from TTs steam iron suggestion, but why isn't there a route that just does this?


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

See, nice and straight, no duplication, gives James St a full time service, and the 193 can go.

If a bridge from Boundary St to St Lucia is ever built, then this route uses it.

[#Metro]

YES!!

Yes and 198 can be deleted!! Solve the James Street issue and you can get the illegible 475 out of there.
Indeed 475 should be cut right back to the CBD IMHO. The money saved could be spent on more 475 services.

CUTTING is a essential and proper part of maintaining a simple, legible and efficient network that does not waste money
or time. If you are against cuts, you are also against a simple, efficient and frequent network, as a messy bush of low frequency legacy routes are the direct consequences of failing to use the chainsaw on the network and old routes that have long passed their utility.

NOTE: I still think the people of Bulimba are more deserving...

[#Metro]

I'm going to repost this statement, because it is so important. It is something that should be remembered when we get caught up in the 'romance' (as Gazza put it) of legacy routing and routes that simply have lost their main purpose over time.

CUTTING is a essential and proper part of maintaining a simple, legible and efficient network that does not waste money
or time. If you are against cuts, you are also against a simple, efficient and frequent network, as a messy bush of low frequency legacy routes are the direct consequences of failing to use the chainsaw on the network and old routes that have long passed their utility.

[Gazza]

If you are against cuts, you are also against a simple, efficient and frequent network, as a messy bush of low frequency legacy routes are the direct consequences of failing to use the chainsaw on the network and old routes that have long passed their utility.

Careful with using the word "cuts" in general.

The removal of the Whitfords shuttle in perth was a 'cut' too, but a bad one.

Is there another phrase that could describe "good cuts?"

[#Metro]

Well if you can find the right word, use it.

Personally, I like to be direct and to the point an not mice words - I don't have a problem with the words sex, death, cuts, taxes, sewerage etcetera.

A cut can be good or bad. Much like good or bad cholesterol or good and bad fats or good or bad additions to the network.

CUT!!

[ozbob]

or a 'surgical resection of dead and dying tissue .. '   

[#Metro]

San francisco: sometimes cuts are an improvement http://www.humantransit.org/2009/11/san-francisco-cuts-for-effectiveness.html

"decomissioned"
"retired"
"removed from service"
"withdraw"
"consolidate"

I like cut because it is the most direct and uses the fewest letters.

[somebody]

Maroon CityGlider "a stunt"

Bam, direct hit!

Anyway, my question is, further from TTs steam iron suggestion, but why isn't there a route that just does this?


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

See, nice and straight, no duplication, gives James St a full time service, and the 193 can go.

If a bridge from Boundary St to St Lucia is ever built, then this route uses it.

This suggestion has merit, particularly if combined with a 196 which just runs along the river between Moray St and Oxlade Dr and a 199 which just runs along Brunswick St to New Farm Ferry.

Bypassing the Valley is apparently a controversial aspect, and to do it you have to do a bit of a dog leg via Robertson St, especially westbound, although you are avoiding the dog leg via Brookes St eastbound.

I've thought about something similar myself.  Not 100% sure about traffic arrangements around the West End side, or the New Farm side for that matter.

To be honest, I'd be happy if they just ran the 470 further along James St and got rid of the unneeded Ferry bit of it.

[Gazza]

I suppose there is no need to bypass the valley (Hate that phrase though) Because it would still be direct going through it.

Was just indicative.

IMO, the newfarm and west end pairing should really just try and make each route cover the 'mirror image' on each side of the city, which it does to an extent. Its just routes like the 196 which aren't quite perfect.

[aldonius]

How about 'prune'?

[STB]

That part isn't the problem.  The original CityGlider should have been a numbered route, all stops through West End and remove the 192.  Unless you would argue that the limited stops is a big enough benefit to justify retaining the 192.  Probably the same on the other side.  Why's the 470 still serve the Ferry?

Please cut 198! or at least steam it straight!

It can be useful for some people.  How do you straighten a loop?

I don't think we should call for such a route to be cut.

I agree.  198 does serve a purpose, despite it being a loop service.  Mainly due to the locations of the hospitals, the layout of West End/Highgate Hill and those damn hills.  See Simon, I do agree with you on occasions .