Terms of use Privacy About us Media Contact

Author Topic: 590 Reportback  (Read 14179 times)

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
590 Reportback
« on: March 10, 2012, 07:04:13 PM »
Reportback on 590

I caught the 590, full length between Airport 1 and Garden City today (Saturday). Some observations.

The 590 is doing really well. First trip was around 3pm from Garden City. Overall we took about 15 passengers the entire length of the trip, which was really good. Few passengers do the entire trip length, which was expected as this is an orbital, most passengers are going from Garden City to Carindale and Cannon Hill, from Cannon Hill to Carindale and from Cannon Hill to DFO Brisbane Airport.

One thing that annoyed me was that the 598/599 was not abolished. What this means is that on a saturday, a 590 will leave and then 5 minutes later a 598 will leave or similar, and then there will be a half hour gap... there isn't evenly spaced intervals, which is a problem.

I would suggest abolishing the 598/599 on this section and using this to run more, evenly spaced 590 services.
I would also suggest increased frequency to 15 minutes all day to 9pm as a matter of Core Frequent Network standards, irrespective of patronage. This would also make transfer easy.

On the way back from DFO, which was about after 5pm, there were about 30-40 people on board. The bus wasn't packed but it certainly was carrying a very decent load of people! Which is VERY surprising given that it doesn't go anywhere near the CBD. It would be interesting to get the patronage statistics on this route for sure.

All in all, it is working and doing what it is supposed to. Remove the GCL on this section, make even intervals, and more frequent and you have a winner!
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

STB

  • Guest
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2012, 07:56:40 PM »
No, the 598/599 at least provides a bus service from Murrarie station to Carindale/Cannon Hill.  Plus they the 590 does service a different route to the 598/599.  And what about the rest of the 598/599?

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2012, 11:51:41 PM »
Quote
No, the 598/599 at least provides a bus service from Murrarie station to Carindale/Cannon Hill.  Plus they the 590 does service a different route to the 598/599.  And what about the rest of the 598/599?

I disagree.
It is better to combine parallel routes into one, more frequent route.
Therefore 599/598 should be abolished. Indeed, the entire GCL is one big legacy route.

Another bus could be used to connect a train station (not necessarily Murrarie) to the Cleveland line and Cannon Hill/Carindale, such as a more frequent and steam-ironed 232 (for example only).
 
There is already the 250 at Carindale to the Bayside Suburbs. Carindale people can also catch 222 and change the Cleveland line at Buranda.

Society would be better off with the 599/598 folded into the 590 along this section to allow regular departures at regular intervals. Deadwood must be cut. TransLink (and BT before that) has a terrible habit of not cutting anything - the result? A high fares, high subsidy, low frequency network. Failure to consolidate 599/598 dilutes the frequency of the 590. No wonder we have a bushy network of deadwood and legacy routes that requires subsidy to the hilt.

CUT!!
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 12:10:03 AM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

STB

  • Guest
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2012, 07:34:07 AM »
Quote
No, the 598/599 at least provides a bus service from Murrarie station to Carindale/Cannon Hill.  Plus they the 590 does service a different route to the 598/599.  And what about the rest of the 598/599?

I disagree.
It is better to combine parallel routes into one, more frequent route.
Therefore 599/598 should be abolished. Indeed, the entire GCL is one big legacy route.

Another bus could be used to connect a train station (not necessarily Murrarie) to the Cleveland line and Cannon Hill/Carindale, such as a more frequent and steam-ironed 232 (for example only).
 
There is already the 250 at Carindale to the Bayside Suburbs. Carindale people can also catch 222 and change the Cleveland line at Buranda.

Society would be better off with the 599/598 folded into the 590 along this section to allow regular departures at regular intervals. Deadwood must be cut. TransLink (and BT before that) has a terrible habit of not cutting anything - the result? A high fares, high subsidy, low frequency network. Failure to consolidate 599/598 dilutes the frequency of the 590. No wonder we have a bushy network of deadwood and legacy routes that requires subsidy to the hilt.

CUT!!

Lol, says you, who isn't a qualified planner to state that nor has evidence to back it up.  Remember you are but only one person ;).  With all due respect, all you are doing is looking at a map and thinking the route should go without thinking about potential consequences and the patronage dynamics along that route, including alternatives (among many other things Planners have to go through when looking at a certain route - keep in mind to develop a network internally it takes up a minimum of six months of full time work to do so and that time is well used!).  I can assure you, Planners don't just look at a bus route and say 'CUT!' like you do as an armchair planner.

For me as a passenger it works out better to catch a train to Murrarie and then transfer onto a 598/599 to Carindale or Cannon Hill, simply because it's more efficient and my local service doesn't connect with the 250.  And how the heck is someone from say Morningside going to get to Carindale?  Do they have to travel into Buranda and out again, ie: travel backwards to go forwards?  There are plenty of other other examples out there, even along the route itself where there is no other way of getting from A to B without the 598/599.  If anything, it just needs to be split into separate sections IMHO.

I don't think the 598/599 corridor will be cut from the network anytime soon.  In fact, I remember a while back they were thinking of boosting the frequency in sections of it, I think this was in the TNP IIRC?
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 07:50:29 AM by STB »

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2012, 07:38:37 AM »
The only significant things done by the 598 and 599 not done by the 590 are to connect to the Cleveland line and to serve the Gateway TAFE.

You can achieve both by sending the 590 via Cannon Hill station (so it can still serve Southgate) and then sending it to Kingsford Smith Drive via Southern Cross Way and serving the current 599 stop and a stop on Fison Ave.

Minimal changes, and truncating the 598/599 to run from Garden City to Indooroopilly to Chermside to Toombul only will save resources until the rest of it can be reformatted.  Maybe even enough to justify sending the 590 to Toombul without needing a significant amount of extra expenditure.
Ride the G:

STB

  • Guest
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2012, 07:49:03 AM »
The only significant things done by the 598 and 599 not done by the 590 are to connect to the Cleveland line and to serve the Gateway TAFE.

You can achieve both by sending the 590 via Cannon Hill station (so it can still serve Southgate) and then sending it to Kingsford Smith Drive via Southern Cross Way and serving the current 599 stop and a stop on Fison Ave.

Minimal changes, and truncating the 598/599 to run from Garden City to Indooroopilly to Chermside to Toombul only will save resources until the rest of it can be reformatted.  Maybe even enough to justify sending the 590 to Toombul without needing a significant amount of extra expenditure.


My only concern with that is that you take out both Queensport Rd and Creek Rd.  From about Walter St (about the halfway point), it's approximately just over 1km to Cannon Hill Shops, and about 800m to Lytton Rd, as taking out the 590 would then have those routes servicing those other roads such as Barrack Rd and Lytton Rd instead of Creek Rd and Queensport Rd in the circumstance of the 598/599 (in theory).  For those living in Queensport Rd, you'd be looking at about a 700m walk (up a hill), to Lytton Rd to board the 590.  In regards to the other sections, you'd have to look at the surrounding land use and various bus routes to get an idea of an impact if the 598/599 was cut completely as TT wants to do.  But like I said, and you've pointed out, separating the 598/599 into different routes between those locations would at least help with the on time running performance of the route.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 07:55:19 AM by STB »

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2012, 08:46:58 AM »
Quote
Lol, says you, who isn't a qualified planner to state that nor has evidence to back it up.  Remember you are but only one person Wink.
 

What? So only qualified planners with access to paid subscription academic journals can comment on RAILBOT or voice and idea. Really?

BT and TransLink has a consistent track record of not cutting legacy routes. P88, 198, 222 vs 200, 203 the list goes on? Will they approve the Maroon Citygliders too? The result? High subsidy, high fares, low frequency - the worst possible combination you can get.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:wrVKgII_pLwJ:www.thredbo-conference-series.org/downloads/thredbo10_papers/thredbo10-themeE-Nielsen-Lange.pdf+nielsen+lange+public+transport+network&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShrcuDIFZjHsJJOsLTqex93N0jnB0KziQ5D_0KWClceooKt1qj2KBoHsW5blor10bjXrPVETdAMi9sBlXuG21ZlODsDvA4TyENBYwS7yFmDmiXWEJIoJ4y4vq9RONuY7x4YMgVS&sig=AHIEtbRF_xtpnM99WeeHnYcdD2pc2argOw

Quote
Properties of lines that support network development and design

In order to facilitate the creation of a simple network of lines, there are some line design
solutions that should be aimed at. The principles are discussed in greater detail in the HiTrans
Best practice guide (Nielsen, Lange et al. 2005), but some main points are worth mentioning
here.
First, in order to simplify the network and support the creation of high frequency services, a
concentration of lines and operational resources to high quality routes is necessary, see figure
9. Even if this in many cases will result in longer walking distances for some customers.

Quote
With all due respect, all you are doing is looking at a map and thinking the route should go without thinking about potential consequences and the patronage dynamics along that route, including alternatives (among many other things Planners have to go through when looking at a certain route - keep in mind to develop a network internally it takes up a minimum of six months of full time work to do so and that time is well used!).  I can assure you, Planners don't just look at a bus route and say 'CUT!' like you do as an armchair planner.

Yes, and that is perfectly acceptable for a member of public to do. Might be annoying for them (tough), but the public PAYS them to do the alternatives analysis and all that yada yada.

It is their job as public servant which my taxpayer dollars and high fares pay which is rising at 15% annually is to serve and listen to the community (who surprise surprise don't all have planning degrees to comment!) and take on their feedback and ideas because we pay them to implement OUR VALUES - fast, frequent, direct, legible. It's not my job and I don't get paid, as a customer and taxpayer it is my democratic right to voice feedback.

You can't criticise me for not doing in depth patronage data analysis, mining academic journals, alternatives modelling and the like - it is THEIR JOB which they are PAID TO DO with my taxes and ever-increasing fares, not mine!

Quote
For me as a passenger it works out better to catch a train to Murrarie and then transfer onto a 598/599 to Carindale or Cannon Hill, simply because it's more efficient and my local service doesn't connect with the 250.  And how the heck is someone from say Morningside going to get to Carindale?  Do they have to travel into Buranda and out again, ie: travel backwards to go forwards?  There are plenty of other other examples out there, even along the route itself where there is no other way of getting from A to B without the 598/599.  If anything, it just needs to be split into separate sections IMHO.

As with everything, there is context. Services could be scheduled at proper regular intervals if the GCL was removed along this sections and replaced with boosted 590 services. Indeed, that is the whole idea that this forum has been pushing for - dissolution of the GCL into separate sections to allow reliability, regular intervals, better co-ordination with trains and consistency. The current situation is very poor because frequency has been sacrificed for occasional infrequent coverage - the GCL sections should be part of the Core Frequent Nework rather than a coverage/welfare service IMHO.

Fact is, there may be better ways do connect the Cleveland line to Carindale/Cannon Hill either by changing existing bus routes, or making changes to 590. AND IT IS TRANSLINKS JOB FOR WHICH THEY ARE PAID TO DO THE ANALYSIS TO FIND OUT WHAT WORKS.


Quote
I don't think the 598/599 corridor will be cut from the network anytime soon.  In fact, I remember a while back they were thinking of boosting the frequency in sections of it, I think this was in the TNP IIRC?

The GCL is one big legacy route that comes with all the attendant problems that are inherent with the geometry of loops as well. TL needs to decide whether the goals of the GCL are welfare/coverage or patronage as part of a CFN. I would suggest the latter.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2012, 10:30:59 AM »
The only significant things done by the 598 and 599 not done by the 590 are to connect to the Cleveland line and to serve the Gateway TAFE.

You can achieve both by sending the 590 via Cannon Hill station (so it can still serve Southgate) and then sending it to Kingsford Smith Drive via Southern Cross Way and serving the current 599 stop and a stop on Fison Ave.

Minimal changes, and truncating the 598/599 to run from Garden City to Indooroopilly to Chermside to Toombul only will save resources until the rest of it can be reformatted.  Maybe even enough to justify sending the 590 to Toombul without needing a significant amount of extra expenditure.


My only concern with that is that you take out both Queensport Rd and Creek Rd.  From about Walter St (about the halfway point), it's approximately just over 1km to Cannon Hill Shops, and about 800m to Lytton Rd, as taking out the 590 would then have those routes servicing those other roads such as Barrack Rd and Lytton Rd instead of Creek Rd and Queensport Rd in the circumstance of the 598/599 (in theory).  For those living in Queensport Rd, you'd be looking at about a 700m walk (up a hill), to Lytton Rd to board the 590.  In regards to the other sections, you'd have to look at the surrounding land use and various bus routes to get an idea of an impact if the 598/599 was cut completely as TT wants to do.  But like I said, and you've pointed out, separating the 598/599 into different routes between those locations would at least help with the on time running performance of the route.

Generally agreed. 

There is still a need for a service there, the question is really just what to provide that with.  There is probably another solution than using a cross-town orbital route to do what is effectively a local milk run.

Perhaps just extend the 210 or one of the Cannon Hill terminators so it takes in Murrarie, Queensport and Southgate and terminates there.  Carina Depot could use the resources not being applied to the GCL for this and a few other things, as it would be off the route and it would fall to Toowong and maybe Garden City to operate the GCL remnant.
Ride the G:

somebody

  • Guest
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2012, 11:20:25 AM »
590 with an unchanged 598/599 is a classic case of what Jarrett Walker refers to as the "new route problem".  One route slapped in the middle of a network which makes the network no longer logical.  Perhaps the situation is to be temporary, but given that it is standard Translink MO it might not be.

Is anyone actually using the Metroplex Ave part of the service?  I'm not convinced that sacrificing serving the Cleveland line justifies this one.

And how the heck is someone from say Morningside going to get to Carindale?  Do they have to travel into Buranda and out again, ie: travel backwards to go forwards?
How are you doing that one now?  I reckon you are travelling I/B to Buranda by train and then getting a 222/209/250 to Carindale.

Not sure of the point you are making here.

keep in mind to develop a network internally it takes up a minimum of six months of full time work to do so and that time is well used!).
Yes, well the 217 did get through this allegedly rigorous process.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2012, 11:19:41 PM »
Ride the G:

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2012, 12:41:26 AM »
TBH, I've never cared too much if routes like that exist. They're obviously purely welfare, and I don't advocate scrapping them.
At the same time, I don't think major operators should be running these, rather a 2nd tier operator that deals soley with welfare routes.

What I do oppose is if what should be a mass transport route is being forced to fulfil this sort of function, or if an area does not have a mass transit alternative where it warrants it (eg a stretch of main road not having a direct bus down in)

I mean, in the North Lakes example, yes those routes exisit, but at least the 687 is there, and  is basically bang on in terms of how the route should be designed (Too bad it is peak only) and the 688/689 also do the mass transit routing and manage to be equally direct, with a Transfer at the Westfield to get to Petrie, which is a bit annoying IMO, and the hourly frequency is a bummer too.

Hopefully when the MBRL opens they can sort this out and extend to feed the station, and make it more frequent.

Just looking at North Lakes, it seems suprisingly transit friendly.....Few are terrbily far from the bus routes, and the road structure is actually quite clean.
 and the Golf Course is deep in the estate, so its not taking up prime catchment area.

Offline HappyTrainGuy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4899
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2012, 03:35:05 AM »
TransLink has also been responsible for developing or continuing such abominations as these:

http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/110606-311,312,313,314.pdf
http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/080331_558.pdf
http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/110606-683,684.pdf
http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/050905_737.pdf

They can be as useless or as cluey as they like to fit the circumstances.


I'm sick of you being so negative about bus routes all the time. Now, back to figuring out how I can go from Westfield Strathpine/Strathpine railway station to the Eatons Hill Tavern without going via Roma Street after 5.30pm on a weekday....  FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

 :-r :-r :-r :-r :-r :-r

http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/100726-357,359.pdf
http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/120220-338.pdf

Why you no terminate at Strathpine station/Interchange! And why you no running after 5.30pm!

 Hahaha, seriously Translink really needs to have an indepth look into how it operates a large majority of its routes.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 04:20:24 AM by HappyTrainGuy »

somebody

  • Guest
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2012, 07:13:20 AM »
I'm sick of you being so negative about bus routes all the time. Now, back to figuring out how I can go from Westfield Strathpine/Strathpine railway station to the Eatons Hill Tavern without going via Roma Street after 5.30pm on a weekday....  FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!
Must be sarcasm.

What if you want to get from the city to arrive at Eatons Hill tavern after 9:47pm or leave after 8:05pm?

I understand Eatons Hill Tavern is a bit of a Taxi Mecca.  Probably, there are a lot of fights there too.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2012, 07:30:59 AM »
Quote
TBH, I've never cared too much if routes like that exist. They're obviously purely welfare, and I don't advocate scrapping them.
At the same time, I don't think major operators should be running these, rather a 2nd tier operator that deals soley with welfare routes.

I think some of these routes are absolutely SHOCKING, many could be replaced with longer patronage routes and serve the coverage function AND get more pax too. The focus should be CFN though - I think at half hourly services, most of the network is coverage goal oriented.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2012, 09:06:57 AM »
In many cases (especially the 558) TransLink actually replaced the previous coverage/welfare type services with something vastly inferior that carries LESS people.

The 684 must have been plotted by the people responsible for keeping Joh premier for so long - nobody else could design something so crooked, useless and unrelated to the situation on the ground.
Ride the G:

Offline HappyTrainGuy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4899
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2012, 11:39:44 AM »
Must be sarcasm.

Yep :P

What if you want to get from the city to arrive at Eatons Hill tavern after 9:47pm or leave after 8:05pm?

Not many options. From they city ideally one would train it to Strathpine and then get picked up/drive from the park and ride/taxi it home or they can drive/taxi it home all the way from the city. I pointed out the tavern as its opposite the turnoff for the massive estates at Eatons Hill that every bus going to Strathpine/City/Chermside passes, its next to the large sporting complex at Eatons Hill, it being a busy multipurpose venue while a short drive to the nearby station/library/strathpine westfield. That being said alot of local families including kids do go there for lunch and dinner at the bistro, there's bands and entertainers performing. Jimeon will be doing a show there in April. Don't expect many people to catch PT there. Monday nights they have pool comps with the nrl monday night games and alot of people also go there to get p%ssed  on friday and the weekends too :P They've got some good routes out this way covering the area, its just a shame that they are miss managed with poor frequency, confusing timetable maps that resemble the 'make your own story' Goosebumps books depending if its during school terms, terriable operating hours, dredful termination stops (Should be extended to feed into the local heavy rail/westfield bus interchange) and when combined with the high fares it just makes driving anywhere in the area seem like the ideal option. Wanna see a movie at the cinemas at Westfield? Better make sure the movie finishes before 5pm :P

I think this might be going off topic now.

Offline Jonas Jade

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 248
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2012, 12:01:31 PM »
Marilyn Manson performed at Eatons Hill  :-r

STB

  • Guest
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2012, 12:27:18 PM »
In many cases (especially the 558) TransLink actually replaced the previous coverage/welfare type services with something vastly inferior that carries LESS people.

The 684 must have been plotted by the people responsible for keeping Joh premier for so long - nobody else could design something so crooked, useless and unrelated to the situation on the ground.

The 558 was brought on by community pressure, with the route put on as a trial service initially but I believe is now permanent, to retain the old network and connections into Logan Central.  I can't comment on the 684 though, no idea how that came about.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 12:37:17 PM by STB »

STB

  • Guest
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2012, 12:36:55 PM »

And how the heck is someone from say Morningside going to get to Carindale?  Do they have to travel into Buranda and out again, ie: travel backwards to go forwards?
How are you doing that one now?  I reckon you are travelling I/B to Buranda by train and then getting a 222/209/250 to Carindale.

Not sure of the point you are making here.

What I'm saying is the network should be developed so you don't need to do a V shape trip to get from A to B, eg: in the case of travelling between Morningside to Carindale, you either, catch a 227 to Cannon Hill and then transfer onto a 598/599 or 590 to Carindale, or you do what I mentioned, train to Buranda, then 222/209/250 to Carindale, although in that option you are travelling backwards (away from your destination) in order to travel to your destination. 

Of course though that needs to be balanced out with what a particular bus route services (it needs to service more than just an industrial estate and a Tavern for example - which the 338 covers ie: beyond the tavern and through Albany Creek.

STB

  • Guest
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #19 on: March 12, 2012, 12:41:20 PM »
@TT - Yes, I know that is what they are paid to do, but what I'm saying is that I think it comes across in the way you use your language, eg: using your own made up catchphrases like  'CUT!'.  That implies that this is what should and must only be done and that can upset some people - and the last thing I want for RBOT is to upset those people who may live along the route itself but feel that this is what RBOT approves of.  Plus if you are going to say it in using that sort of language style, then at least provide some background and data on why it should be and must be done that way and that can soften your style of communicating what you are saying.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2012, 12:51:26 PM »
Quote
@TT - Yes, I know that is what they are paid to do, but what I'm saying is that I think it comes across in the way you use your language, eg: using your own made up catchphrases like  'CUT!'.  That implies that this is what should and must only be done and that can upset some people - and the last thing I want for RBOT is to upset those people who may live along the route itself but feel that this is what RBOT approves of.  Plus if you are going to say it in using that sort of language style, then at least provide some background and data on why it should be and must be done that way and that can soften your style of communicating what you are saying.
   

The real issue is the expert / advocate and professional / public dynamic.
Experts need advocates, advocates need experts. Dressing it up as a 'language' issue is avoidance - people don't want to see it direct because it is too confronting for them to handle.
If someone gets offended because someone says "I think route X is a waste of resources and should be cut!" that's not an issue on my side of the fence - it is an issue on their side of the fence, because they take issue to a post that says things directly that they don't like. And have you read some of the other language used by other posters on this forum? I did a search of the word "idiot" in the search function, and five pages of hits came up...

While it would be nice to have a sexless, dull and boring discussion (c.f. Spectrum of Authorities by Jarrett Walker) based around pure math/geometry/biology, as an advocacy group there is going to be 'hot' in there - things I or we or groups feel. Advocacy is political (but not necessarily partisan) and in any such debate people ARE going to be upset - just watch any parliament question or debate time. We support rail and busway extensions that might require hundreds of people, possibly including 80 year olds with frail health living on the line alignment in the same house since they were born to be evicted and their house demolished, making them upset...

There have been many times where my or someone else's idea has been described as foam/stupid/let me get my snorkel/maglev to doomben etc... I guess that's just part and parcel...

I'm pretty direct, as so are other posters. We are all different.
It would be like me going around trying to change other people - impossible!

'CUT' is a single word, it's not foul language, and tells you everything you need to know. It is well within the RAILBOT T.O.S.

Quote
and the last thing I want for RBOT is to upset those people who may live along the route itself but feel that this is what RBOT approves of.
I understand this is a perceived issue, but at the bottom of every single post of mine is this notice:

Quote
Posts are my independent commuter view- not RailBOT's or other party.

« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 01:22:53 PM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2012, 01:19:47 PM »
Quote
What I'm saying is the network should be developed so you don't need to do a V shape trip to get from A to B, eg: in the case of travelling between Morningside to Carindale, you either, catch a 227 to Cannon Hill and then transfer onto a 598/599 or 590 to Carindale, or you do what I mentioned, train to Buranda, then 222/209/250 to Carindale, although in that option you are travelling backwards (away from your destination) in order to travel to your destination.  

A diversion to 590 so that it runs past the train station is possible, but the disadvantage is extra time, extra irritation for through pax, it will probs cost more to run, and it is not running on main roads - taking it further away from CFN principles. You also can't serve both metroplex and the train station due to geometry. It's one or the other.

To be honest, I don't think a separate (598) bus all the way from Garden City to Cleveland line is that necessary given that it is faster to catch the busway to Buranda and change to a Cleveland Service from Garden City and you've also got the 270 or whatnot from there too. So something that goes between Cleveland line and Murrarie tacked onto something else might be a goer, and this might be ironing and boosting the 232 to create a Bulimba-Carindale cross-town, or some kind of shuttle. It's just one option of many to debate.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2012, 01:21:05 PM »

And how the heck is someone from say Morningside going to get to Carindale?  Do they have to travel into Buranda and out again, ie: travel backwards to go forwards?
How are you doing that one now?  I reckon you are travelling I/B to Buranda by train and then getting a 222/209/250 to Carindale.

Not sure of the point you are making here.

What I'm saying is the network should be developed so you don't need to do a V shape trip to get from A to B, eg: in the case of travelling between Morningside to Carindale, you either, catch a 227 to Cannon Hill and then transfer onto a 598/599 or 590 to Carindale, or you do what I mentioned, train to Buranda, then 222/209/250 to Carindale, although in that option you are travelling backwards (away from your destination) in order to travel to your destination. 
You can do as you suggest but you are exposing yourself to more low frequency routes in the process, even if it is more direct.

While I agree with what you are saying, it is an irrelevance in the context.  It's as though you are trying to deflect the conversation.

Of course though that needs to be balanced out with what a particular bus route services (it needs to service more than just an industrial estate and a Tavern for example - which the 338 covers ie: beyond the tavern and through Albany Creek.
Hmmm, N200 I/B serves nothing more than a tavern - Chalk Hotel.  Not sure why this one is different, nor with the N330 which could run its whole length in service and would likely be used.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2012, 01:31:26 PM »
A diversion to 590 so that it runs past the train station is possible, but the disadvantage is extra time, extra irritation for through pax, it will probs cost more to run, and it is not running on main roads - taking it further away from CFN principles. You also can't serve both metroplex and the train station due to geometry. It's one or the other.

Via Cannon Hill station would appear to be OK - a lot easier to swallow than going via Queensport and doubling back to/from Metroplex.  An important feature of a CFN route is that it has to provide connectivity - adding maybe a minute or 2 for the Cleveland line is in my mind a reasonable trade-off.  You could probably make up some of that time by just not turning into Metroplex Avenue and plonking the stop out the front.
Ride the G:

STB

  • Guest
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #24 on: March 12, 2012, 01:32:51 PM »

And how the heck is someone from say Morningside going to get to Carindale?  Do they have to travel into Buranda and out again, ie: travel backwards to go forwards?
How are you doing that one now?  I reckon you are travelling I/B to Buranda by train and then getting a 222/209/250 to Carindale.

Not sure of the point you are making here.

What I'm saying is the network should be developed so you don't need to do a V shape trip to get from A to B, eg: in the case of travelling between Morningside to Carindale, you either, catch a 227 to Cannon Hill and then transfer onto a 598/599 or 590 to Carindale, or you do what I mentioned, train to Buranda, then 222/209/250 to Carindale, although in that option you are travelling backwards (away from your destination) in order to travel to your destination.  
You can do as you suggest but you are exposing yourself to more low frequency routes in the process, even if it is more direct.

While I agree with what you are saying, it is an irrelevance in the context.  It's as though you are trying to deflect the conversation.

Of course though that needs to be balanced out with what a particular bus route services (it needs to service more than just an industrial estate and a Tavern for example - which the 338 covers ie: beyond the tavern and through Albany Creek.
Hmmm, N200 I/B serves nothing more than a tavern - Chalk Hotel.  Not sure why this one is different, nor with the N330 which could run its whole length in service and would likely be used.

I'm certainly not trying to deflect the conversation, it's just developed as I've responded to what others are posting, and this thread is about the 590/598/599 which goes towards preventing these V shape trips that the network, for the most part, is unfortunately has been built over time to do.

The NightLink services are a different matter as they were specifically designed to get patrons out of those nightclubs and pub hotspots in the city and inner city areas and back into the suburbs to get them home.

Offline HappyTrainGuy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4899
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2012, 01:48:35 PM »
Some services should be cut. Weather cut means terminating at 'x' location or removal of the service its up to how the user words/describes/shows it.

In regards to the 338 it covers alot more than Albany Creek/a tavern and a industrial estate. Its the only route connecting Eatons Hill to Strathpine. It travels in under 10 minutes via an industrial estate to enable people to transfer to the Caboolture railway line for trains north/City bound or to the Strathpine bus interchange to connect to other buses that serve Strathpine/Warner/Bray Park/Lawnton/Scarbrough/Redcliffe/Sandgate/Bracken Ridge without having to go via Chermside or via the City.... litterally which can blow out from anywhere from 1 hour to 2 or more hours. In the other direction it continues on to serve the Aspley bus interchange before terminating at the Chermside bus interchange. A very valuable, under utilized route. There are also a few bus routes that travel through industrial estates that link Deception Bay to the heavy rail line at Narangba, Burpengary, Morayfield and Caboolture.

V shaped trips have been happening for ages now. Mostly due to the fact most routes travel to the city rather than providing loops/connections inbetween and around interchanges while utilising the heavy rail available.

Offline techblitz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2012, 07:49:24 PM »
i use this 590 service at least once a fortnight and it eases a lot of the aviation college peak hour patronage thanks to its connection with the 308 back to toombul....the 598/599 near mirror issue needs to be looked at.
Im sire its already been suggested but run the 590 to toombul.....crank the 599/598 up southern cross way,toombul road,maynard, hamilton road/chermside (this allows better services to northgate which imo are below par) Then all they need to do is fix toombul to chermside routes which should be easy.

This make better use of the 590 and keeps the great circle a circle:) And im sure a few gcl users would give anything to bypass toombul  & miss all that east-west arterial toombul traffic at peak hour which is disasterous to say the least.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 07:56:57 PM by techblitz »

somebody

  • Guest
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2012, 08:04:34 PM »
Does the 590 serve Gateway TAFE adequately?  If so, I think your proposal is worthy of some serious consideration.  That the 590 misses Murrarie railway station is a serious limitation!

Offline techblitz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2012, 10:54:36 PM »
GCL connects murrarie with toombul...so with my suggestion is have GCL go through metroplex since TL really want that area serviced (even though its not very patronised yet due to delayed commercial development) and of course have 590 go up murrarie station/queensport rd. Gateway tafe hmmm...if theres a way for 590 to service it then yes im all for a stop somewhere around fisons ave west or thereabouts.....because it seems the 303/302 bus route doesnt provide adequate services for that T.A.F.E college.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2012, 07:57:57 AM »
It is not possible to both serve Murrarie and Metroplex geometrically.
I think a seperate service linking the Cleveland Line to Cannon Hill and beyond is warranted.

This may be a re-worked 232 from Bulimba, via Morningside...
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #30 on: April 08, 2012, 10:36:54 AM »
GCL connects murrarie with toombul...so with my suggestion is have GCL go through metroplex since TL really want that area serviced (even though its not very patronised yet due to delayed commercial development) and of course have 590 go up murrarie station/queensport rd. Gateway tafe hmmm...if theres a way for 590 to service it then yes im all for a stop somewhere around fisons ave west or thereabouts.....because it seems the 303/302 bus route doesnt provide adequate services for that T.A.F.E college.
What?  Why are you suddenly reversing the routes?

Perhaps there should be two routes crossing the Gateway, 591 Cannon Hill bus station - Murrarie railway station - Gateway Tafe - Southern Cross Way - Northgate railway station / Toombul Rd&Holland Rd - Chermside.  I'm in two minds about this - it requires exiting the freeway at Eagle Farm only to re-enter it.  Also not extending south of Cannon Hill could be controversial, but if the timetable coordinates with the 590 I don't think it needs to.

598/599 isn't going to stay too long.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2012, 11:54:38 AM »
Introducing spur/shadowing/split routes/diversion routes splits the frequency.
The GCL services should be CFN grade services IMHO. The solution for Gateway TAFE is a coverage service.

Why can't they:

(1) get a Doomben Train
(2) get 304/303 railbus service to this area

http://translink.com.au/travel-information/services-and-timetables/buses/route-303

All 599/598 services along this section would then be abolished and the funding transferred to the 590 to amplify frequency
on that from a 20 min service to 15 minutes all day. I agree that the metroplex / murrarie issue is annoying, but there are
two options - divert 590 to travel via Murrarie and omit Metroplex, OR have another route altered (232 Bulimba is a candidate, there may be others) to travel via there.
travel via there.

The whole purpose for introducing the 590 (which seems to be doing rather well despite unsynchronised timetabling with the 599/598) was to eventually GET RID of the GCL altogether.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2012, 12:02:07 PM »
302/3/4 is an option for Gateway TAFE.

Doomben train isn't an option or relevant!?

I think it would be better to deviate the 590 than have an additional transfer to cross the gateway.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2012, 12:07:30 PM »
http://translink.com.au/travel-information/services-and-timetables/buses/route-232

I have had a look at the 232 timetable and guess what, the 232 passes DIRECTLY outside Cannon Hill station.
There is no need IMHO to have the GCL travel via Murrarie "so that people can connect to Cannon Hill". If and when TransLink
decide to come around to reviewing the Bulimba area, they could cut the 232 and steam iron it into a service that
travels from the Bulimba Ferry via Riding Road, Wynnum Road, into Junction Road, Cannon Hill station, Cannon Hill
shops and with the $$$ left over from straightening it, double the frequency on it from hourly to half hourly to
then co-ordinate with trains on the Cleveland line.

If you are against cuts, you are also against a simple, legible, frequent network.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2012, 12:18:19 PM »
Quote
Insert Quote
302/3/4 is an option for Gateway TAFE.

Doomben train isn't an option or relevant!?

I think it would be better to deviate the 590 than have an additional transfer to cross the gateway.

Hmm... I don't like deviating CFN lines - the 302 needs to be folded into 303's. Er, how is Doomben train station not relevant, indeed the TAFE is right next door to it, what's needed is a decent pedestrian connection between the station and the TAFE. This could be a level crossing or overbridge or something else.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #35 on: April 08, 2012, 12:42:18 PM »
http://translink.com.au/travel-information/services-and-timetables/buses/route-232

I have had a look at the 232 timetable and guess what, the 232 passes DIRECTLY outside Cannon Hill station.
There is no need IMHO to have the GCL travel via Murrarie "so that people can connect to Cannon Hill". If and when TransLink
decide to come around to reviewing the Bulimba area, they could cut the 232 and steam iron it into a service that
travels from the Bulimba Ferry via Riding Road, Wynnum Road, into Junction Road, Cannon Hill station, Cannon Hill
shops and with the $$$ left over from straightening it, double the frequency on it from hourly to half hourly to
then co-ordinate with trains on the Cleveland line.

If you are against cuts, you are also against a simple, legible, frequent network.

So from Mt Gravatt, I need a 590 to Cannon Hill bus station then a 232 to Cannon Hill Railway station.

Or from the north I need to go to Cannon Hill bus then a 232 to Cannon Hill Rail.

I expect near zero take up of those options.

Doomben rail is still 1km or so from Gateway TAFE, but more importantly it is pretty useless to those heading north/south to it, which is those who I was thinking of here.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #36 on: April 08, 2012, 01:19:35 PM »
Quote
So from Mt Gravatt, I need a 590 to Cannon Hill bus station then a 232 to Cannon Hill Railway station.

Why can't you get a busway service (a bus every few seconds) from Mt Gravatt and hop off at Buranda?? It would be faster because waiting time would be cut.

The 232, when steam ironed may be worthwhile to extend to Carindale. Though a transfer might not be bad at Cannon Hill if the 590 is CFN Grade. That's the whole idea of a connective network, as opposed to a direct service one. Though that said, Bulimba Pax would like Carindale as the terminal destination I am sure.

Quote
Or from the north I need to go to Cannon Hill bus then a 232 to Cannon Hill Rail.

Where from the North? Toombul? Go to the CBD and change at Roma Street. Nothing wrong with doing this either.
Sometimes the CBD is the best place to do the change.

Quote
I expect near zero take up of those options.

Yeah, but this is not a taxi service. This is PT...

Quote
Doomben rail is still 1km or so from Gateway TAFE, but more importantly it is pretty useless to those heading north/south to it, which is those who I was thinking of here.

Er, well from Google Maps it is 400m or less, so how did you come up with 1km? I think accessibility by foot is the issue there and I have suggested crossings or overbridges to improve that as potential options.

TAFE Is located next to the rail junction
http://g.co/maps/bzkk7

Put a pedestrian level crossing in at Jackson Street into the TAFE - this will allow pax to walk across the tracks into the campus in a straight line. Because the line is rarely ever used (freight only) it is also reasonably safe as well. http://g.co/maps/9n2jv
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 01:27:18 PM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline HappyTrainGuy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4899
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #37 on: April 08, 2012, 01:28:15 PM »
Is walking that little distance really such a problem?

somebody

  • Guest
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #38 on: April 08, 2012, 01:36:04 PM »
Hmm, some fair points.  Looks like I had the TAFE in the wrong place.  Indeed, currently the 598/599 leave the motorway to make the stop.

I guess the question comes down to should you be asked to make the trip between the Cleveland Line and the northern lines via the CBD & South Bank or can you use the Gateway, which should be much faster.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: 590 Reportback
« Reply #39 on: April 08, 2012, 01:44:48 PM »
Quote
Hmm, some fair points.  Looks like I had the TAFE in the wrong place.  Indeed, currently the 598/599 leave the motorway to make the stop.

I guess the question comes down to should you be asked to make the trip between the Cleveland Line and the northern lines via the CBD & South Bank or can you use the Gateway, which should be much faster.

Simon, I think it depends on both vehicle speed and frequency. Travel from Northern suburbs and Garden City/busway with a CBD connection have the advantage that they are high frequency.

The alternative, if you really really want to serve that one place, IS to make the 590 deviate off the motorway, travel 400 meters down KSD, perform a U-turn and stop, then head back on to the motorway. There is a problem though - on the opposite carriageway, I can't see an on/off ramp...!  :-w The bus seems to only be able to do this one way!

http://www.nearmap.com/?q=No_off-ramp%20on%20return%20lane%3F@-27.433108,153.083051&ll=-27.432732,153.083051&z=19&t=k&nmd=20111107
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 


“You can't understand a city without using its public transportation system.” -- Erol Ozan