590 Reportback

[achiruel]

Wow, I had another look and I agree with this! 
You can get a nice rail connection to Cannon Hill so that Metroplex workers can hop off a train and get to Metroplex. Probably will be used most in peak and hardly outside of peak, but it is nice and useful. Straight down Creek Road is fastest and probably cheapest, but the Barrack Road option has better coverage and the benefit of a connection. If/when rail frequencies on the Cleveland line are improved, it might make a neat connection.

Might be used outside peak as well, for local people to get to/from Cannon Hill SC/Interchange and onward destinations (Carindale, CBD, Garden City, DFO etc.), and maybe we can finally get rid of that **** 232!

[techblitz]

590 Reportback - 27 December 2012
Journey: City-Carindale then Garden City - Carindale, both directions. Afternoon, non-peak.

Another ride on the 590!

I was in the CBD and wanted to go to Bunnings at Cannon Hill. Stupidly I JUST missed the 220 and because I know the next time the bus shows, I could have baked a cake or ten, I thought 'screw this, go to Carindale and change, it might be faster anyway'.

So I did.

Route 590 is doing really well. At Carindale lots of people got on and off the bus, I counted 20 in total. This is amazing! I really hope they cut up the GCL and amalgamate so that its just one bus line, simple and frequent. Overheard BT drivers outside the depot complaining how the 599/598 runs just in front of the 590 and how inconvenient that was for slightly late passengers who then had to face a big wait. Of course, this timing / scheduling problem arises purely because the GCL is a big circle, so it is geometrically impossible to have even spaced/timed services along at least two points of the circle. Solution - chop the circle up.

It is irritating how Wynnum Road does NOT have a decent BUZ service that goes straight down it, despite it being a nice fast arterial road. BUZ it!!

On the way back, less people (around 10) but still very good load for a half hourly service that competes with the GCL. Lots of people making transfer connections.

i think the problem with the wynnum region in general is it is already well serviced by rail and the loop service eg: lindum - manly all pass through residential areas (bar wynnum central which services mostly commercial).A fair wad of pax prefer to take the loop service to manly station and then take advantage of the express services direct to the city.I expect translink to hold off on a buz service for wynnum and just increase the frequencies of the 227/220.For now im hoping the 220/227 gets wacked up to 1/2 hourly but even that might be a long shot

[somebody]

Doesn't that make it pretty inconvenient to get from Stafford Rd to the city?

I'm confused by this plan.

Why?

Bus every 15 minutes to Lutwyche, change buses.  Fewer resources, same objective met - high frequency radially and laterally.

What's so special about Stafford Road that people living on it can't interchange?  What's the functional difference between this and something like Route 177 (passes several trip generators) or the proposal for routes 453/454 in the off-peak?

As far as I can see, it doesn't achieve a transfer at the same stop, and transferring a bus which is likely well loaded onto another one is never a good option.  Throw in a significant walk and it's a real disincentive.  375 is a well used service, I'm just not sure if it's well used by people in the Kedron-Stafford bit.

They should never have added the extra stops to the 340 IMO, but a 375 break up would have made sense.

i think the problem with the wynnum region in general is it is already well serviced by rail and the loop service

I'd hardly call it well served by a half hourly rail service, with hourly periods thrown in.

[achiruel]

I wouldn't call the Wynnum/Manly Loop a good service either.

Hourly from ~7:20am-5:40pm M-Fri and ~8:30-3:30 on weekends/public holidays.

Bleh.

[somebody]

Further to my above comments, I cannot see how a transfer at the same stop system can be effected with the 369 deviation proposal above.

I'm sticking with my opinion that the Stafford via Thistle St route should go via QUT KG and not to Bardon.

[Gazza]

Why does transfer have to be at the same stop?

[Golliwog]

Why does transfer have to be at the same stop?

I agree. It's a busway station, it has lifts and stairs to both platforms. Get over it. I use the 369 currently to get to Chermside, should I be complaining that I have to change platforms to get the bus to my destination?

[somebody]

Why does transfer have to be at the same stop?

I would have thought that had already been answered.

transferring a bus which is likely well loaded onto another one is never a good option.  Throw in a significant walk and it's a real disincentive.  375 is a well used service, I'm just not sure if it's well used by people in the Kedron-Stafford bit.

In the 369 deviation proposal I was referring to, the transfer isn't even at the same station, but requires a walk down the road.  But let's say that the 369 is not deviated.  Then you cannot serve Thistle St/Richmond St which leaves a few losers from such a change.  I would still say that the 375, on available info, is too well used to degrade - Value for Money was listed as "high" with patronage "Very High".

[Golliwog]

http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/maps/busway-station/120618-lutwyche-busway-station.pdf

If the 369 comes off Bradshaw St then heads north on Gympie Rd then where ever the stop is there, they don't have to cross a road to get down onto either busway platform. If the Mitchelton bound service serves a stop on Gympie Rd a bit north of Bradshaw then they too don't have to cross a road and the bus should have ample time to get across to the right turn lane. That's if you adopted SurfRail's proposal, but used Norman St in both directions (which now has traffic lights IIRC) instead of Chalk St.

[SurfRail]

Why does transfer have to be at the same stop?

I would have thought that had already been answered.

transferring a bus which is likely well loaded onto another one is never a good option.  Throw in a significant walk and it's a real disincentive.  375 is a well used service, I'm just not sure if it's well used by people in the Kedron-Stafford bit.

In the 369 deviation proposal I was referring to, the transfer isn't even at the same station, but requires a walk down the road.  But let's say that the 369 is not deviated.  Then you cannot serve Thistle St/Richmond St which leaves a few losers from such a change.  I would still say that the 375, on available info, is too well used to degrade - Value for Money was listed as "high" with patronage "Very High".

Bus stops can be moved.  I see no reason why a stop couldn't be placed right outside the station plaza on both sides of Gympie Road.

While the 375 is still running, there is no point in having the 369.  It is just a case of waste on wheels.  You could do what I have suggested and save resources, but clearly some people have a bug up their backside about single-seat journeys to the city and reinforcing the radial system while running high-frequent air-shuttles that nobody uses because the patronage is sucked up elsewhere.

[SurfRail]

http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/maps/busway-station/120618-lutwyche-busway-station.pdf

If the 369 comes off Bradshaw St then heads north on Gympie Rd then where ever the stop is there, they don't have to cross a road to get down onto either busway platform. If the Mitchelton bound service serves a stop on Gympie Rd a bit north of Bradshaw then they too don't have to cross a road and the bus should have ample time to get across to the right turn lane. That's if you adopted SurfRail's proposal, but used Norman St in both directions (which now has traffic lights IIRC) instead of Chalk St.

I would have preferred to depict Norman St for that very reason (and it's what went in my proposal), but Google Maps hasn't been updated to show the situation on the ground...

[Golliwog]

Ahhhk, cool. Good old up to date Google Maps...

Only problem with having the stop for the Mitchelton bound 369 right outside the busway plaza is it might not be able to get across 3 lanes of traffic to turn right.

[techblitz]

transferring a bus which is likely well loaded onto another one is never a good option.  Throw in a significant walk and it's a real disincentive.  375 is a well used service, I'm just not sure if it's well used by people in the Kedron-Stafford bit.

the very well used service 375 has the majority of its pax deboard on and around the richmond st section of the route.

[somebody]

I would have preferred to depict Norman St for that very reason (and it's what went in my proposal), but Google Maps hasn't been updated to show the situation on the ground...

When did you say that in this thread?  I guess that's a bit better.  I'm still not convinced about that as a system combined with 340 serving 333 stops though.

[somebody]

Why does transfer have to be at the same stop?

I would have thought that had already been answered.

transferring a bus which is likely well loaded onto another one is never a good option.  Throw in a significant walk and it's a real disincentive.  375 is a well used service, I'm just not sure if it's well used by people in the Kedron-Stafford bit.

In the 369 deviation proposal I was referring to, the transfer isn't even at the same station, but requires a walk down the road.  But let's say that the 369 is not deviated.  Then you cannot serve Thistle St/Richmond St which leaves a few losers from such a change.  I would still say that the 375, on available info, is too well used to degrade - Value for Money was listed as "high" with patronage "Very High".

Bus stops can be moved.  I see no reason why a stop couldn't be placed right outside the station plaza on both sides of Gympie Road.

While the 375 is still running, there is no point in having the 369.  It is just a case of waste on wheels.  You could do what I have suggested and save resources, but clearly some people have a bug up their backside about single-seat journeys to the city and reinforcing the radial system while running high-frequent air-shuttles that nobody uses because the patronage is sucked up elsewhere.

According to Google Maps, the deviation proposed for the 369 is 1.5km.  That is the same as the distance of overlap between the 369 and 375.  So adding 1.5km to save 1.5km?  If there wasn't a large reduction in patronage on the 375 this would probably require increased buses along the Lutwyche Rd corridor - perhaps that reduction is to be delivered by the fares policy.

Honestly, the only reason I can see why these routes can't continue to co-exist is ideology.  I would say it is yet another case of artificially inducing a transfer.

[Golliwog]

I don't think it's ideologically driven. Can you honestly say that the passengers from the 375 between Stafford City and Lutwyche couldn't fit on the existing northern busway services? Peak could become a bit more squishy, but you run extra buses then anyway. To compensate for the inconvenience of the transfer, you could use some of the resources freed up by having the 375 only run from Bardon/Ashgrove to the City to bump of the frequency of the 369 to reduce waiting time.

[somebody]

Equally, can you say that the passengers will fit on the next available service, and what proportion of the time?

Once you are starting to talk about additional services there is no saving involved.

[Golliwog]

Once you are starting to talk about additional services there is no saving involved.

Yes there is, you're also not having the 375 run the 11km to the city each way, which at 4 buses an hour is 88km, while making the 369 come every 10 minutes (an extra 2 services) would add an extra ~80km.

[SurfRail]

333, 340 and 375 services are rarely standing room only outside of peak.  The patronage will fit.

[somebody]

333, 340 and 375 services are rarely standing room only outside of peak.  The patronage will fit.

Every time though?  I've certainly seen the 333 standing room only outside of peak.

Once you are starting to talk about additional services there is no saving involved.

Yes there is, you're also not having the 375 run the 11km to the city each way, which at 4 buses an hour is 88km, while making the 369 come every 10 minutes (an extra 2 services) would add an extra ~80km.

I think you are missing my point.  If additional 333s are required that is an additional trip on a longer service than the 11km of the 375.  I can't imagine additional 369s would be needed for loading purposes.

At what cost to patronage would this change be?

[Golliwog]

The point of extra 369's wasn't about capacity, so much as keeping the trip attractive (i.e minimize wait times when interchanging). Before you look at adding extra runs on 333, 340, etc, I'd look at running higher capacity buses where possible.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Plenty of room. 333s get more patronage but other services are there to take up the slack and are very under utilised such as the 340 and the 77. Off peak with no traffic mess on the corner of Hamilton Road/Gympie Road the 77 can overtake the 333 because no one flags it down - I know as I've been onboard waiting behind it on the busway at Lutwyche overtook it at Kedron then looked at it as I crossed the Zebra crossing across the interchange at Chermside. I'd be inclined to make the 330s stop at Kedron so people can transfer on to it as they can carry small loads at times.

Agreed. Higher capacity vehicles are already running the corridor but they are mostly on 340 and 77 duties where they are underutilised.

[somebody]

The point of extra 369's wasn't about capacity, so much as keeping the trip attractive (i.e minimize wait times when interchanging).

In what world would that be a priority?  Be better to increase the 333.

Before you look at adding extra runs on 333, 340, etc, I'd look at running higher capacity buses where possible.

Not sure that is possible as the artic capable stops in KGSBS are taken by the 111 & 66.

Plenty of room. 333s get more patronage but other services are there to take up the slack and are very under utilised such as the 340 and the 77. Off peak with no traffic mess on the corner of Hamilton Road/Gympie Road the 77 can overtake the 333 because no one flags it down - I know as I've been onboard waiting behind it on the busway at Lutwyche overtook it at Kedron then looked at it as I crossed the Zebra crossing across the interchange at Chermside. I'd be inclined to make the 330s stop at Kedron so people can transfer on to it as they can carry small loads at times.

Agreed. Higher capacity vehicles are already running the corridor but they are mostly on 340 and 77 duties where they are underutilised.

77 hardly counts as you'd have to interchange again at Windsor.  Remaining services are the 334 (which could be truncated), and the 370.  If significant numbers of people are currently using the 375 then this plan would only work if enough patronage is deterred by it.  I can't any reason for it.

HCV on the 340, are you sure?  An artic would certainly foul the stop behind.  I guess not a problem on a weekend because the 66 isn't running.

[Golliwog]

Perhaps, but there is more than just the Northern Busway they can transfer onto. (Eagle Junction, 345...)

[HappyTrainGuy]

Unless its Chermside bound City bound with a 330 stopping there would help aswell.

I've only seen them about 2-3 times and they were all on weekdays citybound. Wasn't a bendy bus of sorts but that white tail fin, tinted windows and the orange desto really makes them stand out at the traffic lights on Beams Road/Gympie Road. The only reason they stood out so much was because up on the northside we only get the compact Scania's and the tall Volvos which all have green destos. The only other time you can see the tail fin are on the 315s along Sandgate road or the 680's and they don't use that part of Beams Road.