Bulimba Glider

[#Metro]

Some food for thought....  
Travelling ON the busway rather than parallel to it means that it reinforces the network
(i.e a person wanting to go to the gabba does not have to wait in a different place, if a 66, 100, 200 or 222 goes past they can hop on it)
and serves many of the places that the Maroon CityGlider does. Pax for Paddington change to 385.

It combines many origins and destinations therefore is useful for all sorts of trips, all day. And high quality interchange points at Wooloongabba (Ips Road services), Mater Hill (SE Busway services) and Cultural Centre (Western and Northwestern Services). Travel demand will be in BOTH directions on the route- perfect for all purpose, all day service.

The part past the valley is optional, but since James Street is a coverage gap and was slated for LRT, would be worth it.

[Golliwog]

I'm all for through routing in the CBD, but I'd limit it to routes where its actually likely for someone to stay on it through the CBD. I can't see anyone from Bulimba using this to go past the City as the ferry would be faster. Even from the Gabba, a via Story Bridge route would be faster.

[Mr X]

Send it via Captain Ck Bridge and city precincts?

[beauyboy]

To tell the truth IMHO stuff the glider. Lets go back to BUZes.
I much perfer the 230 BUZ concept.
saying "catch the 230 BUZ" is simpler for people to understand as they think you are saying bus not BUZ if they have not heard of it before.
The fact is the glider is just a BUZ by another name and if we want to simplefy the network we need simple titles. BUZ should be the title for HP serves and nothing else. Council only invented the Cityglider title to get political points after state started to fund more BUZ routes and Council could no longer claim sole credit.

Donald

[#Metro]

My view is that the connection opportunities at W'Gabba, Mater Hill and Cultural Centre as well as the CBD (you'd get ALL the commuters and shoppers on this bus) necessitate it travelling through the CBD using existing CityGlider bus stops there.

Something else can go via the Story Bridge IMHO.

[aldonius]

Even from the Gabba, a via Story Bridge route would be faster.

Don't you think Kangaroo Point could do with a high profile service too? <strokes beard>

[#Metro]

Send it via Captain Ck Bridge and city precincts?

Hahaha. Very funny!!! (get the joke).

[#Metro]

Don't you think Kangaroo Point could do with a high profile service too? <strokes beard>

CFN is about doing the *bare* minimum. Luxuries can wait. 475 could be sent to W'Gabba and be amplified if that's what was needed.

[aldonius]

Woops, I've fallen victim to a variant of Poe's Law.

Actual opinion: BUZ the 230. If possible, BUZ the 235 as well, cutting back to W'Gabba offpeak if that's what's necessary to make it happen.

[O_128]

I'm all for through routing in the CBD, but I'd limit it to routes where its actually likely for someone to stay on it through the CBD. I can't see anyone from Bulimba using this to go past the City as the ferry would be faster. Even from the Gabba, a via Story Bridge route would be faster.

I think its a great idea, Especially giving James street a service (remember people rarely travel end to end on a line). You could then Buz the 235 so that they arent left behind and run it via story bridge and KG point.

Best thing is it could branded as a Eat street to Eat street link rather than the began express. "if someone can think of a good slogan for eat street to eat street then use it in the press release"

Running Via the busway is vital so that interchange is easy. look at how dead the 88 was before they moved it to where all the other buses were at indro!

[achiruel]

BUZ 235 to Powerhouse via Story Br.
BUZ 230 via current route
Easy interchange for people wanting to go to the other destination at several stops along Wynnum Rd.  Maybe one of them could be made a larger 'interchange' style stop with bigger shelters, real time display etc - preferably the one near Norman Park Ferry Terminal.

[Golliwog]

Of course people rarely do a end to end trip on a through CBD route, however, if you're going to make a through CBD route, you should at least make it one that someone could conceivably do. No one in their right mind would catch a bus from Bulimba to New Farm via The Gabba and CC.

Both services are valid, but its the join I object to. I do still think the Citycat could have more/better feeder buses, but that's an argument for another day and another thread.

[Mr X]

Match it with the 385 to make a Bulimba to The Gap BUZ?

[#Metro]

Of course people rarely do a end to end trip on a through CBD route, however, if you're going to make a through CBD route, you should at least make it one that someone could conceivably do. No one in their right mind would catch a bus from Bulimba to New Farm via The Gabba and CC.

Both services are valid, but its the join I object to. I do still think the Citycat could have more/better feeder buses, but that's an argument for another day and another thread.

You object to the join?

I'd expect that by the time the bus got to the CBD, Bulimba pax would have exchanged with other services - SE Busway, UQ, Hospitals and work in the CBD.
On the way (So from Mater Hill onwards) passengers would be catching it to go to James Street, CBD and Valley and Powerhouse.

I don't think it is odd at all- many examples of services that run in loops. This isn't a loop due to the river. And I don't like loops anyway.

Importantly, the Brisbane Powerhouse, James Street, and Bulimba are all places where there is activity at night. Stones Corner and Paddinton are all shut down after 6-7pm. What this means is there's good loadings at either end.

If people don't like something - design your own route, and post it up.

I chose the 230 because it is a Fortitude Valley terminator. It would only be a relatively short extension to add onto the current 230 to get it into James Street, New Farm. The only other CFN routes I could think of would be say BUZ 400 or Gazza's West End-New Farm route 198 (steam iron) service.

[Mr X]

How about extending route 192 to the James St - Powerhouse? It currently terminates in Adelaide St. It could even be joined with the 193 and sent via James St.

[#Metro]

How about extending route 192 to the James St - Powerhouse? It currently terminates in Adelaide St.

Don't a lot of those terminate at West End.

You'd have to justify it running at CityGlider Frequencies- amplifying 192 to BUZ frequencies would cause overlap of the Current Cityglider. Even if we move that to the next street over, that's already within the coverage zone of 199. Move it over again, and that's in the coverage zone of 196. Gazza's idea is quite good actually, but again there's no restaurants down the end of Boundary St/Ryan Road, just the West End precinct mid-route. But I'm happy to hear disagreeing thoughts.

Bulimba Glider has Powerhouse at one end (night activity) and restaurants at the other end (night activity) and the valley/CBD in the middle.

[Mr X]

It was only the temporary ones from the closure of West End ferry that terminated at West End. All services terminate in the city.

Do we even need a BUZ to James St? It isn't really that far from the 199/196 on Brunswick St. Likewise we don't need a service to Bulimba that operates the same frequency as the current cityglider.

[#Metro]

You can see in Gazza's image below (Figure 1) that James Street is a coverage gap. It's the unshaded bit between the CityGlider and 199.
Sending a service down to the Brisbane powerhouse would allow access to a pocket of very high density housing and also complete
the grid in New Farm so that most residences were within walk of a legible
fast, direct service.

[Golliwog]

You mean I can't just do a Newman and point out what I see as wrong with what you're suggesting?

I'm sure that yes they will interchange around South Bank, etc, and that we shouldn't be designing the network for single seat journeys, but that also doesn't mean we have to design it to avoid the possibility of single seat journeys. There are plenty of routes where adding on a trip to New Farm via James St would enable something like this, such as the suggested West End routes, or say some of the SE busway routes. Similarly, there are a number of routes that adding on the 230 to would be good too, such as the 385, or some of the Western routes, or possibly even some of the northern routes that don't go via Fortitude Valley.

[Mr X]

I'm not saying don't put a bus service to James St- by all means, do so and one should exist. But I am saying, why does it need to be a BUZ, when two are a 400m walk away (which isn't that far really). Similarly I don't support any more BUZ services for West End. If the 192 was extended, it wouldn't need to be a BUZ. Just some extra services would do..

You said it yourself many times- don't put a BUZ down every street to the city. So why are you trying to do this in New Farm?

However after implementation if it did have high loads/overcrowding, then by all means, upgrade it later 

[Golliwog]

I would second HBU's sentiments there. Just because BCC proposes a glider service doesn't mean we have to propose one in return.

[Fattious]

You can see in Gazza's image below (Figure 1) that James Street is a coverage gap. It's the unshaded bit between the CityGlider and 199.
Sending a service down to the Brisbane powerhouse would allow access to a pocket of very high density housing and also complete
the grid in New Farm so that most residences were within walk of a legible
fast, direct service.

Gazza's image does not show the 470 which fills the void for those that can't walk a block or two.

Cityglider serves the commercial precient up to Doggett St, 480m outbound on Wickham St, 300m for inbound on Ann St.

199 and 196 on Brunswick Street is 470m from James Street.

Shopper service 193 welfare route also covers the far end.

Most of those few blocks that are >500m from the CityGlider or BUZare heritage listed low density.

[MaxHeadway]

Gazza's image does not show the 470 which fills the void for those that can't walk a block or two.

Problem is, the 470 is rather circuitous at the Teneriffe end. Better to send it straight down James St.

Dunno how much merit this idea has, but here goes: Swap the 470 and 475 around at the Southside ends (à la routes 196/199 in February '06). BUZ the new 475 at least. Use William Jolly Bridge, Cultural Centre busway station, Adelaide St (common routing with the 196/199—also more legible than one direction being three blocks down from the other!), then James St. As an aside, that might allow all those Southside all-stops routes (125, 175, 230 etc) to terminate in the CBD, instead of going all the way to various stops in the Valley.

[Map since replaced with improved version]

[newbris]

...
Importantly, the Brisbane Powerhouse, James Street, and Bulimba are all places where there is activity at night. Stones Corner and Paddinton are all shut down after 6-7pm. What this means is there's good loadings at either end.
...

I agree the Latrobe Tce end is a daytime place (apart from a few restaurants) but the Caxton St end is buzzing at night...as is the Rosalie end of Paddington which is of course not on the proposed route.

[somebody]

Dunno how much merit this idea has, but here goes: Swap the 470 and 475 around at the Southside ends (à la routes 196/199 in February '06). BUZ the new 475 at least. Use William Jolly Bridge, Cultural Centre busway station,

I'm with connecting James St and Rosalie, so long as it uses Coro eastbound.

What I don't agree with is connecting Valley-PAH via Story Bridge with City-Milton Rd.  The latter should use KGSBS to avoid Herschel St IMO.  Nothing should use Herschel St, except to terminate/lay over.

Similarly, I don't really like going via the Cultural Centre.  It would add to congestion and the interchanges made possible could be done easily enough in other ways.

Problem is, the 470 is rather circuitous at the Teneriffe end. Better to send it straight down James St.

It's a case of the "new route" problem Jarrett refers to.  This should have been done when the CityGlider was established.

[somebody]

I'm all for through routing in the CBD, but I'd limit it to routes where its actually likely for someone to stay on it through the CBD. I can't see anyone from Bulimba using this to go past the City as the ferry would be faster. Even from the Gabba, a via Story Bridge route would be faster.

Forgot to mention that I say this is a valid point.

[MaxHeadway]

I'm with connecting James St and Rosalie, so long as it uses Coro eastbound.

I've amended my map accordingly. Regarding the stretch via the Story Bridge: is there an easy right of way between Adelaide St and the busway portal near KGS? Anyhow, best to leave out the "pink" route, for the purposes of this thread.

I don't really like going via the Cultural Centre.  It would add to congestion and the interchanges made possible could be done easily enough in other ways.

If several infrequent routes were taken out of CC, that wouldn't be an issue. BTW, 194's the number assigned to this hypothetical route, because 190 could be used for the existing CityGlider (especially if it became all-stops).

[somebody]

I don't really like going via the Cultural Centre.  It would add to congestion and the interchanges made possible could be done easily enough in other ways.

If several infrequent routes were taken out of CC, that wouldn't be an issue. BTW, 194's the number assigned to this hypothetical route, because 190 could be used for the existing CityGlider (especially if it became all-stops).

So you'd be with TT then.  I don't really agree with this plan.  Reducing (or removing) the 66 and increasing Roma St-RBH service without the "through route" would be my first port of call.  Next is improving the effectiveness of rockets.  Then, arguably, you could take the "Toombul" routes out. 

[SurfRail]

Wouldn't it be easier to connect the James Street route with a Boundary Street route to kill off the 198?  Less playing around with the rest of the network then, which means it can be done more easily.

[Gazza]

I'd expect that by the time the bus got to the CBD, Bulimba pax would have exchanged with other services - SE Busway, UQ, Hospitals and work in the CBD.
On the way (So from Mater Hill onwards) passengers would be catching it to go to James Street, CBD and Valley and Powerhouse.

I don't think it is odd at all- many examples of services that run in loops. This isn't a loop due to the river. And I don't like loops anyway.

Which routes run in loops (non welfare ones i mean)

Point is, if you are going to join two routes, join two which would benefit from a single seat journey along the length, because you can do it "for the sake of it" and benefit some people.....It's a bit like that idea to join the 109 to the 333...Not everyone is gonna ride the length, but some would because you can actually imagine someone from Chermside going to UQ the whole way.

Another example...Imagine if the pairings on the rail network were different (lets ignore sectorisation for a minute), and the Airport line was joined to say the Richlands line...That would be a bit random, and not that many people would go end to end.
But the current pairing makes sense because you think of say GC residents wanting flights overseas that OOL cant offer, and they benefit from an end to end run on the train.

When you think about travel, it would tend to be in a straight line for most people, so often bus rotue on the other side of town in a straight line is a good candidate for joining.
The spiral pattern of your glider would not get any real end to end travel, so it might as well be separate routes.

but again there's no restaurants down the end of Boundary St/Ryan Road, just the West End precinct mid-route. But I'm happy to hear disagreeing thoughts.

The Boundary Rd BUZ would not be a Cityglider.
As for no shops and restaurants.....Well, tell me whats at the end of a Centenary BUZ....just houses!

[Golliwog]

Slightly off topic, but Chermside-UQ would be faster on the 77, with a transfer at PAH or Buranda. I know a guy who has tried both options and by the time you're transferring from the 77, the 333 is still in the city.

[Mr X]

This is what I'd prefer to see for West End:

The 190 doesn't even have to be a BUZ, just similar frequency to the 192 but with services on weekends. Both routes could then go to James St.



I am a bit iffy having it go down Glenfield St/Ryan St, the terrain here is quite hilly and the street is quite thin.

Such a route should come after a BUZ to Centenary, Bulimba and 359 though.

[somebody]

Wouldn't it be easier to connect the James Street route with a Boundary Street route to kill off the 198?  Less playing around with the rest of the network then, which means it can be done more easily.

So Montague Rd (Glider) + Hardgrave Rd (199) AND Boundary St?  Seems like it would be over serviced.  199 on Boundary St would be more logical, if that is possible.  Cue the backlash from that though.

[SurfRail]

Wouldn't it be easier to connect the James Street route with a Boundary Street route to kill off the 198?  Less playing around with the rest of the network then, which means it can be done more easily.

So Montague Rd (Glider) + Hardgrave Rd (199) AND Boundary St?  Seems like it would be over serviced.  199 on Boundary St would be more logical, if that is possible.  Cue the backlash from that though.

Define overserviced though.  The 199 is profitable and still overcrowded.

[STB]

I don't think that's over servicing.  It is a high density area with plenty of hills to slow people down and limit walking distances.  There would also be plenty of share housing in the area and thus, students needing frequent services to get around.  There's also quite a lot of employment in and around West End and Highgate Hill, and that will only continue to grow in time.

[Mr X]

Wouldn't it be easier to connect the James Street route with a Boundary Street route to kill off the 198?  Less playing around with the rest of the network then, which means it can be done more easily.

So Montague Rd (Glider) + Hardgrave Rd (199) AND Boundary St?  Seems like it would be over serviced.  199 on Boundary St would be more logical, if that is possible.  Cue the backlash from that though.

No it wouldn't. There are shops and that along Hardgrave Rd, why would you take away a logical route which has existed for decades?

Boundary St needs a route but not a BUZ. Hardgrave Rd is a bigger trip generator.

[somebody]

Hmm, I guess the four route (ignoring 192) proposal is plausible, it just seems like too many routes in the region on roads quite close to each other with Montague/Hardgrave/Boundary.  Increasing frequency on the 199 seems a more reasonable upgrade.  It still isn't that high frequency really.

[Mr X]

Isn't the 199 every 5mins in peak and every 10mins all day except for late at night?

edit: just checked the timetable
due to the through routing nature, 199 operates, going inbound from Teneriffe:
every 15mins from 5:30 to 6:15am
every 10mins to 7:05am
every 5-7mins to 9:05am
every 10mins to 3:50pm
every 5mins to 5:50pm
every 10mins to 7:30pm
every 15mins to 11:15pm

similar going the opposite way.
every 10mins in the middle of the day on a saturday, 15mins on sat morning
every 15mins on sundays

plus you have the cityglider with similar frequencies on montague rd/mollison st.

[#Metro]

When you think about travel, it would tend to be in a straight line for
most people, so often bus rotue on the other side of town in a straight
line is a good candidate for joining. The spiral pattern of your glider
would not get any real end to end travel, so it might as well be
separate routes.

Impact = likelihood x benefit

Such few people would benefit so rarely, that we really shouldn't care unless a significantly better alternative existed.
The 'steamed 198' from West End Ferry Terminal to West End, CBD, Valley and James Street is a decent route and I would
like that. However, that would have to be an entirely new route, except unless the 198 was abolished and the $$$ released from that
were used to fund this new route (remember $ are limiting here). Your steamed 198 (or 190 using Simon Numbering) would be more
reliable than an extended 230. I just used 230 because it seemed like a simple extension on a bus route that already terminated reasonably
close to James Street anyway.

However, I want to make a point that overshadows this - we are too busy arguing about inconspicuous fluff. The main overriding point
is SOMETHING has to serve James Street, its span of hours must be 6 am - 9pm, if it isn't going till 11.30 pm, there's significant night activity
on James Street and Brisbane Powerhouse as well as the Valley, so there needs to be a service to do that.

However, I also agree that BUZ 230, BUZ 400 and BUZ 245 (=227) and BUZ 359 take precedence in terms of need. On the other hand
given that the area has high PT usage, it may too overall be profitable or net cost wise, be quite cheap to run, so it might be something
quick and easy to do.

Define overserviced though.  The 199 is profitable and still overcrowded.

[somebody]

The 199 is profitable

How do we know this?  Supposition?

Isn't the 199 every 5mins in peak and every 10mins all day except for late at night?

Every 10 mins is the BARE MINIMUM for a turn up and go service.  It's 15 minutes Sundays and evenings.