590 Reportback

[SurfRail]

What happens if I am catching a train from Cleveland?  It seems you are suggesting I need to:

- Hop off at Cannon Hill
- Catch a 232 to Cannon Hill shops or walk a long route with poor legibility
- Catch a 590 to the DFO

When instead it could simply be, and for practically no difference to the current resources:
- Hop off at Cannon Hill
- Catch a deviated 590 to the DFO

590 via Cannon Hill would also have the advantage of better serving the Southgate development by going through it instead of on the other boundary.

Not connecting an orbital route to rail in this stretch is silly - it is easy to implement.

[SurfRail]

Actually, there is a simpler but slightly more radical solution to the issue:

- Build a new Cannon Hill station and bus interchange with ruler straight side platforms (little to no adjustment to the track needed), adjacent to Creek Road
- Close Cannon Hill station
- Close Murrarie station
- Rebuild Cannon Hill bus station to allow it to function better as a non-terminating stop
- Redesign bus network to feed Cannon Hill station

Has the advantage of removing 1 dodgy (Cannon Hill) and 1 very dodgy (Murrarie) set of curved platforms, improving station spacing and line speed and integrating the network better.

[#Metro]

If you split the routes, you split the frequencies.
The 599/598 and 590 results in two routes where it is impossible to synchronise/co-ordinate both. Pax for one destination not served by the other have to watch the first bus pull up pass them and wait for the next one.

If you are on a Cleveland train, get off at Buranda and change to a Busway service to go to Garden City. There's a bus every 2 minutes or so, all day.

If you are on a Cleveland train and want to go to Cannon Hill, get off at Cannon Hill and get a 232.
There may be a case for extending the 232 to serve Carindale, and slotting the 232 in between 590 services, as that is a major destination.

The alternative is to deviate the 590 past Murrarie, but this then geometrically rules out servicing Metroplex. The important thing IMHO is to have *some* kind of connection between Cleveland line and Carindale.

Amplifying both routes will result in more cash burn for the same increase in passengers - leading to a high subsidy, high fare, low frequency type network (what we have got now, surprise, surprise).

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

[#Metro]

Actually, there is a simpler but slightly more radical solution to the issue:

- Build a new Cannon Hill station and bus interchange with ruler straight side platforms (little to no adjustment to the track needed), adjacent to Creek Road
- Close Cannon Hill station
- Close Murrarie station
- Rebuild Cannon Hill bus station to allow it to function better as a non-terminating stop
- Redesign bus network to feed Cannon Hill station

Has the advantage of removing 1 dodgy (Cannon Hill) and 1 very dodgy (Murrarie) set of curved platforms, improving station spacing and line speed and integrating the network better.

As much as I agree with this, this would violate CFN principles which is "little or no new infrastructure required"

[#Metro]

- Build a new Cannon Hill station and bus interchange with ruler straight side platforms (little to no adjustment to the track needed), adjacent to Creek Road

This is such a good idea... CUT!!

[somebody]

Actually, there is a simpler but slightly more radical solution to the issue:

- Build a new Cannon Hill station and bus interchange with ruler straight side platforms (little to no adjustment to the track needed), adjacent to Creek Road
- Close Cannon Hill station
- Close Murrarie station
- Rebuild Cannon Hill bus station to allow it to function better as a non-terminating stop
- Redesign bus network to feed Cannon Hill station

Has the advantage of removing 1 dodgy (Cannon Hill) and 1 very dodgy (Murrarie) set of curved platforms, improving station spacing and line speed and integrating the network better.

Sounds expensive.  It could only be justified if you were going to completely rebuild one of those railway stations anyway.  You could run a bit of duplication for that cost.

[SurfRail]

If you split the routes, you split the frequencies.
The 599/598 and 590 results in two routes where it is impossible to synchronise/co-ordinate both. Pax for one destination not served by the other have to watch the first bus pull up pass them and wait for the next one.

If you are on a Cleveland train, get off at Buranda and change to a Busway service to go to Garden City. There's a bus every 2 minutes or so, all day.

If you are on a Cleveland train and want to go to Cannon Hill, get off at Cannon Hill and get a 232.
There may be a case for extending the 232 to serve Carindale, and slotting the 232 in between 590 services, as that is a major destination.

The alternative is to deviate the 590 past Murrarie, but this then geometrically rules out servicing Metroplex. The important thing IMHO is to have *some* kind of connection between Cleveland line and Carindale.

Amplifying both routes will result in more cash burn for the same increase in passengers - leading to a high subsidy, high fare, low frequency type network (what we have got now, surprise, surprise).

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

You've completely missed what I proposed, not to mention failing to tell me what I have to do in the specific example quoted by conveniently ignoring it  .  People should be able to get from one side of the river to the other by public transport without having to go as far at Kangaroo Point, and a not insignificant proportion of all patronage from the eastern suburbs comes in by train from beyond Cannon Hill.

Therefore:

1. Progressively delete bits of the 598/599 (once the other orbital routes or suitable replacements are installed).

2. Reroute the 590 heading north from the K-Mart to go Wynnum Rd/Barrack Rd (Cannon Hill Station)/Lytton Rd

3. Resume normal route.

The resources required to do this provide a connection to the Cleveland line without painful doubling back, are infinitesimal at best and would be off-set by removing the 598/599.  232 or some other local/terminating route can do the Murrarie stretch of the existing 598/599 once it is gone.

[#Metro]

You've completely missed what I proposed, not to mention failing to tell me what I have to do in the specific example quoted by conveniently ignoring it 

Say what? I did write out the alternatives, which were (see below) so I don't see how you can say I ignored what you said.

If you are on a Cleveland train, get off at Buranda and change to a Busway service to go to Garden City. There's a bus every 2 minutes or so, all day.

If you are on a Cleveland train and want to go to Cannon Hill, get off at Cannon Hill and get a 232.
There may be a case for extending the 232 to serve Carindale, and slotting the 232 in between 590 services, as that is a major destination.

The alternative is to deviate the 590 past Murrarie, but this then geometrically rules out servicing Metroplex. The important thing IMHO is to have *some* kind of connection between Cleveland line and Carindale.

People should be able to get from one side of the river to the other by public transport without having to go as far at Kangaroo Point, and a not insignificant proportion of all patronage from the eastern suburbs comes in by train from beyond Cannon Hill.

Er, What's wrong with hopping off at Buranda and getting a busway service to Mt Gravatt, if that's where you want to go?

What's wrong with hopping off at Cannon Hill and getting a 232? IMHO there is a case to extend the 232 to Carindale, as part of a wider rationalisation and review in the Bulimba area, and as I wrote before the alternative is to divert 590 but that will make metroplex unserviceable.

Your proposal seems like an awfully large deviation...

[SurfRail]

I don't understand how you can keep missing it?  Where did I mention going from the Cleveland line to anywhere except the DFO?

I will state it again, as clearly as possible:

How do I get from the Cleveland line to the north side of the Brisbane River without going all the way to the city if there is no 598/599?

I don't consider imposing 2 transfers to be a sensible outcome in this situation, particularly where the first and third route (Cleveland line and 590) are meant to be CFN and the intervening route is not.

The deviation is really pretty small, and is not to play favourites or appease locals.  It is to make the route more connective.  You can either do that, or make it 100% direct up Creek Rd.  You can't have both, and frankly I think connectivity is more important than being entirely as the crow flies.

[#Metro]

How do I get from the Cleveland line to the north side of the Brisbane River without going all the way to the city if there is no 598/599?

There really are two separate questions here
1. Should there be 2 routes in this area (my answer - no way)
2. How will we ensure connectedness in the area (my answer - deviate 590 or re-work the 232)

It takes 45 minutes to travel from Toombul to Cannon Hill on the 599/598 from the TL journey planner.
I would not use this route to access destinations further than that (i.e. Chermside etc).

Using the TL journey planner, the same trip can be done from Cannon Hill to Toombul by simply catching the train to the CBD and interchanging to a Northern line service. This journey only takes 8 more minutes to do.
Is it really worth retaining an ENTIRE seperate route costing MILLIONS per year to save just *8* minutes just because someone doesn't want to go to the CBD?! And we wonder why PT needs huge quantities of subsidy and fare rises and yet has abysmal service quality?!

I don't consider imposing 2 transfers to be a sensible outcome in this situation, particularly where the first and third route (Cleveland line and 590) are meant to be CFN and the intervening route is not.

Like I said, you could deviate 590 via that station; But as for a seperate route 598/599 being preserved for it - the time saved is just 8 minutes, hardly worth it and VERY inefficient IMHO - go catch a train into the CBD!! During peak hour there are express trains on the lines and services are more frequent so the time is more or less the same during peak hour.

Bottom Line: The GCL MUST be dissolved - we can argue about where the 590 should go, should it serve station X on the Cleveland line, but we are missing the point - THE GCL MUST GO and there should only be 1 service to ensure maximum simplicity, maximum frequency and maximum efficiency for the lowest cost. Cut up the current circle into individual segments as the first stage, then start amalgamating. The whole idea of getting the 590 was to replace the 598/599, not suck more cash out of the system and duplicate 99% of the current route.

Getting the two routes into one means more frequency for the same $$. This is TransLink not Historical Bus Route and Low-Frequency High-Cost Legacy Routing Preservation Society.

CUT!!

[Gazza]

I disagree. 8 minutes is a pretty hefty bit of time. For me on the train, that's equivalent to having to go out to Gailes rather than getting off at my normal stop of Oxley.

I've got no issue with shattering the GCL, but at the same time its BS to say there can only be one orbital route around Brisbane.
It's like saying Melbourne should only have one orbital smart bus.

So long as say the orbital routes are far enough apart that they serve different sets of people, its all good.

And why is it just about someone shortcutting (Which is a good thing actually because it relieves CBD capacity)
A route isn't just about the final destination, but the stuff on the way. Any orbital route should go through a cleveland line station, because consider someone going to a destination south of the line, not just someone going to say Toombul or whatever. And making routes useful to lots of different people is a good thing...The sections of the orbital say 2-3km either side of the cleveland line interchange could act like a feeder bus, provided the frequency is there.

Missing connections is dumb.

[#Metro]

I disagree. 8 minutes is a pretty hefty bit of time. For me on the train, that's equivalent to having to go out to Gailes rather than getting off at my normal stop of Oxley.

I'm not convinced and I don't agree with your arguments on this one Gazza (except maybe serving a Cleveland Line station, but like I said that DOESN'T mean we need 2 services).

I'm not sure it is worth the millions of dollars per year to save 8 minutes IMHO. Remember also that due to this spit frequency BOTH the 590 AND the 599/598 ONLY run at half hourly frequencies, whereas when amalgamated into one route you could do BUZ (15 minutes) for little or no extra cost.

So as for two routes - I am against that. That money would be better transferred to amplify the 590 and get BUZ frequency on it for little or no extra cost. If people want to divert the 590 do so, but I'm against having two routes. Two routes means a coverage service - a violation of the CFN principle that it is supposed to be frequent.

Maybe diversion of the 590 to travel via Murrarie or whatever is the way to go. But like I said, two routes means HALF the frequency each. And don't say "let's just BUZ both" because that is *twice the cost* for the same frequency than if they were amalgamated = inefficiency & cash burn.

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

[#Metro]

I've got no issue with shattering the GCL, but at the same time its BS to say there can only be one orbital route around Brisbane.
It's like saying Melbourne should only have one orbital smart bus.

Er... not quite what I was getting at at all. One section - one line. That's the goal.
Two similar routes running next to each other compete with each other and split the frequency. For maximum frequency, consolidate them into ONE line. This is a purely geometric argument. The alternatives are - either half the frequency (both run at cr%p frequency) or double the costs (BUZ one or both), both of which are not attractive.

As for connections, there are many options - from diverting the 590, to a reworked 232. Whatever the option, retaining the GCL to do it should *NOT* be one of them.


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

[#Metro]

I disagree. 8 minutes is a pretty hefty bit of time. For me on the train, that's equivalent to having to go out to Gailes rather than getting off at my normal stop of Oxley.

8 minutes might seem like a lot, so 30 minutes must be an *eternity* which is exactly what having two routes 599/98 and 590, which split the frequency do. For maximum frequency, consolidate two routes into a single, frequent 590.


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

[Gazza]

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

Where did I say I was against cuts on here.
I thought it was well known by people on here that my mindset is very much a bit of a textbook type one...a well connected network which covers the city well.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I don't know the popularity of those routes as I've never used them but in all honestly it depends on the phisical loadings vs traveltime/interchange. Similar to the 77 vs 330/333/340 transfer to P88/111/130/140. 77 is without a doubt 10-15mins quicker than via Cultural Centre incl. interchange depending on the time of day etc but there are times where it can be a tumble weed service or it could be loaded to the brim with students from the Northside going to uni or around shift change time at the Hospital.

[STB]

As a Cleveland line user, for me to get to Chermside, it's preferential at the moment to catch a train to Buranda and transfer onto route 77.  For Toombul, it's easier for me to catch a train to Central and transfer onto a Caboolture or Shorncliffe train.  If I want to go to the DFO (I've only ever done it once), at the moment, my only real option is to catch a train to Central, transfer onto a train to Toombul then get the 308.  I would LOVE the 590 to service either Murrarie or Cannon Hill stations, as it's also handy for me to get to Mt Gravatt, a destination that I do go to much more often than on the northside.  And the 254 doesn't connect with the 260 or 270, or even the 250, so at the moment my best bet to get to Mt Gravatt is to catch a train to Murrarie and risk a non connecting 598/599 or catch a train to Buranda and get onto a 222 or 250 from there - I would also prefer the 590 over the 598/599 as it's more direct and doesn't have much dwell time for recovery purposes at Cannon Hill or Carindale so you aren't waiting around for long at those interchanges.

In a nutshell, I agree with Surfrail, but at the same time, a route would need to exist to cover that missing route in Murrarie if the 598/599 was removed (better word than 'cut' IMO), as the walking distance involved in removing the 598/599 is greater than 1km in some parts and you have to deal with a rather steep hill, in particular heading north from Murrarie station.

Tramtrain, are you a Cleveland line user?  Do you have any evidence in supporting your argument other than what you see on a map?

PS: I personally think it's rather offensive to say that people here are against cuts, I just think they want routes that we suggest to be removed to have some substantial backing ie: research beyond looking at a map as SurfRail has done quite well with his suggestion for the Gold Coast network post GCRT. 

A network can be legible with removing or adjusting some routes, but it should be thought out very well before you start saying which routes willy nilly and that means actually riding the services, seeing what the patronage is like etc, and gathering feedback from those actual users, among other measures, like talking to actual Planners in the industry, which is nothing beyond our means as RBOT members.  There's much more to planning then just looking at a map.

[STB]

Missing connections is dumb.

+1 to that!  TL did just that with the last Eastern Region services change as they said that they were trying to kill off the dead running, but in turn made it less customer focused timetable wise.  No more pulse timetable out here, but that's another story for another thread.

[Jonas Jade]

If you are against cuts, you are also against a simple, legible, cost-effective, frequent network.[/b]

The 590 not connecting to the Cleveland fails these criteria:

Simplicity - Someone from the Cleveland line may have to make multiple transfers instead of a simple single transfer to reach their destination if the connection is available.

Legibility - If as you are touting, the 590 is to be a part of a "CFN" it's neither core nor legible for routes that cross not to connect. To revert to a driving analogy, it's akin to most of the roads coming from the east not having an on ramp to the Gateway Bridge, and everyone from the being forced to drive into town and use the Story Bridge.

In the hypothetical CFN world, you'd look at your "CFN" map and expect to be able to make a connection between the two.......

You cut the catchment and cut mobility improvements that the 590 enables by not connecting - and cut the available patronage, making it less cost effective to run.

If both the Cleveland line and the 590 run as "CFN" routes, they should definitely connect - especially if you "CUT!!!!1111!!!" the 598/9.

[#Metro]

1. If a service is to connect the Cleveland line to elsewhere it does not have to be the 599/598, and we should get rid of that GCL.

2. If we insist on having two routes, in all likelyhood we will have 2 services with suboptimal frequency (half the frequency each @ 30 minutes) or we can have 1 route with double the frequency for little or no extra cost. This is purely geometic argument. Now if someone (or planners for that manner) discovers a new mathematics that violates this basic geometric argument, please go and apply for a fields medal!!

Tramtrain, are you a Cleveland line user?  Do you have any evidence in supporting your argument other than what you see on a map?

An Ad Hominem argument and Arguments from Authority won't go far, and yes, I spent 3 years living on the Cleveland Line, also used the 590 many times so I know... Loadings are good on the 590 but the timetable can't be synchronised with the 599/598 because it is a circle...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

The 590 not connecting to the Cleveland fails these criteria:

Simplicity - Someone from the Cleveland line may have to make multiple transfers instead of a simple single transfer to reach their destination if the connection is available.

Legibility - If as you are touting, the 590 is to be a part of a "CFN" it's neither core nor legible for routes that cross not to connect. To revert to a driving analogy, it's akin to most of the roads coming from the east not having an on ramp to the Gateway Bridge, and everyone from the being forced to drive into town and use the Story Bridge.

In the hypothetical CFN world, you'd look at your "CFN" map and expect to be able to make a connection between the two.......

You cut the catchment and cut mobility improvements that the 590 enables by not connecting - and cut the available patronage, making it less cost effective to run.

^ I actually agree with this. I did point out one problem - you can't practically serve Metroplex AND Murrarie - it has to be one or the other. Trying to do it with two routes also has a problem - you've split the frequency into half (current situation) or you've increased the $$$ required significantly (a few million $ - not small change).

[SurfRail]

TT - you've completely missed the fact I support scrapping the 598/599, want the 590 to connect to the Cleveland Line and for it to be the ONLY CONNECTION.

I think you only read what you want to read sometimes...

[#Metro]

I'm going to post maps later today so we can see what we are dealing with and what the options are.
SurfRail, yes I have seen your posts, but there are also other posters in this thread as well and I have to include replies to that in my posts too.

I'm less convinced about sending the 590 via Cannon Hill because a reworked 232 could do that. Deviating the 590 via Queensport Road could work nicely, but then this creates a new problem - there is a lot of denser development in this section and we will miss that. This is why I've considered not using the 590 to do the connection, although people seem to be very against the idea that the connection be performed by a different route that isn't the 590 OR the GCL.

QueensPort Road Sth - served by the GCL
http://g.co/maps/wdqfz

The connection outside Murrarie Station isn't great but people do use it as you can see in the image
http://g.co/maps/nwpfb

I can't see STB's hill anywhere, perhaps he can post that.

There is this short development - http://g.co/maps/4r355 in the area. 590 is on creek road, and I wonder if this problem can be solved a different way with a feeder?

[Gazza]

I think you only read what you want to read sometimes...

+1

Solution is simple. Make the 590 go along Wynnum Rd, Up Barrack Rd, then Lytton Rd.

Serves both destinations.

Problem?

[STB]

Tramtrain, that hill is in the Queensport Rd South link you posted up.  I know it's steep, I've walked it! (we really need a facepalm icon here...).  Oh wait, found it -

[Gazza]

http://g.co/maps/gcxw3

[STB]

1. If a service is to connect the Cleveland line to elsewhere it does not have to be the 599/598, and we should get rid of that GCL.

2. If we insist on having two routes, in all likelyhood we will have 2 services with suboptimal frequency (half the frequency each @ 30 minutes) or we can have 1 route with double the frequency for little or no extra cost. This is purely geometic argument. Now if someone (or planners for that manner) discovers a new mathematics that violates this basic geometric argument, please go and apply for a fields medal!!

Tramtrain, are you a Cleveland line user?  Do you have any evidence in supporting your argument other than what you see on a map?

An Ad Hominem argument and Arguments from Authority won't go far, and yes, I spent 3 years living on the Cleveland Line, also used the 590 many times so I know... Loadings are good on the 590 but the timetable can't be synchronised with the 599/598 because it is a circle...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

.  Sheesh!  I wasn't doing that by any means.  Local knowledge goes a long way, and I'm being entirely reasonable - SurfRail did exactly what I spoke about in an earlier post on his post GCRT network, and he also collaborated and accepted changes from others to develop that map that was very well researched which is why I was impressed by the network, and I saw it straight away.  But by the looks of things you are having a selective memory to suit your own radical (and obsessive) view which by the looks of things, you aren't getting any support from no one here.

Gazza - that's the hill.

[#Metro]

You've made the route deviate by about 2km this way and furthermore the 232 already passes down Barrack Road. SurfRail's suggestion of ONE station on Creek Road is the best, but also the costliest and thus not going to happen anytime soon.

Ironically, by adding this deviation, you'd also obliterate the 8 minute time saving to Toombul, making it faster or just as good to take the train all the way into the CBD and interchange for Northern Suburb connections.

I'm pondering the task of having to design/propose my first welfare/coverage route!!

[STB]

I think you only read what you want to read sometimes...

+1

Solution is simple. Make the 590 go along Wynnum Rd, Up Barrack Rd, then Lytton Rd.

Serves both destinations.

Problem?

+1 to this solution.  With a local route filling in the gaps around Murrarie.

[#Metro]

.  Sheesh!  I wasn't doing that by any means.  Local knowledge goes a long way, and I'm being entirely reasonable - SurfRail did exactly what I spoke about in an earlier post on his post GCRT network, and he also collaborated and accepted changes from others to develop that map that was very well researched which is why I was impressed by the network, and I saw it straight away.  But by the looks of things you are having a selective memory to suit your own radical (and obsessive) view which by the looks of things, you aren't getting any support from no one here.

You say you weren't doing ad hominem, and then directly after that you launch an ad hom character attack. There are a lot of suggestions and ideas that are good you come up with, but ad homs are not one of them. Stick to the argument.

+1 to this solution.  With a local route filling in the gaps around Murrarie.

I'll post a map later today with some of the options discussed.

[Gazza]

and furthermore the 232 already passes down Barrack Road. SurfRail's suggestion of ONE station on Creek Road is the best, but also the costliest and thus not going to happen anytime soon.

How is the 232 relevant? It goes somewhere else. It's not an orbital bus route.

You've made the route deviate by about 2km this way

Still better than not serving it at all.
I thought the whole point of a CFN is that it the bones that allow you to get anywhere, with good connection between routes.

Whats this cr%p about it being ok to go via the CBD. That doesn't represent all trips, which is why RBoT has been calling for 15 min off peak in both directions.

What if someone is making an outbound trip to somewhere on the Cleveland line...Urgh, I'll make a diagram of all the options a 590-Cleveland connection presents:

The ones in the red circle are the ones you say could be done on rail, going via the CBD.
But what about the rest?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Gazza]

Hey I have an idea.

If you are against connections, you are against a network that freely allows people to move about, and are promoting a network that presupposes and dictates where people can travel.

[STB]

.  Sheesh!  I wasn't doing that by any means.  Local knowledge goes a long way, and I'm being entirely reasonable - SurfRail did exactly what I spoke about in an earlier post on his post GCRT network, and he also collaborated and accepted changes from others to develop that map that was very well researched which is why I was impressed by the network, and I saw it straight away.  But by the looks of things you are having a selective memory to suit your own radical (and obsessive) view which by the looks of things, you aren't getting any support from no one here.

You say you weren't doing ad hominem, and then directly after that you launch an ad hom character attack. There are a lot of suggestions and ideas that are good you come up with, but ad homs are not one of them. Stick to the argument.

+1 to this solution.  With a local route filling in the gaps around Murrarie.

I'll post a map later today with some of the options discussed.

Lol.  All I'll say to that is I am sticking to the argument, and I'm also stating the obvious in this thread.

I'm happy to look at your map when you post it up and give you my thoughts on it, but please have an open mind and be open to criticism and changes suggested not only by myself but others here too.  You never know, I might like what you come up with!

[Gazza]

and furthermore the 232 already passes down Barrack Road.

Do you realise what you've just said?

Obviously a road which leads to a train station has the potential for multiple routes on it, radiating to various final destinations.

Or are you saying that because Barrack Rd is "taken up" by the 232 already, that's all that it can ever have?

In Perth, some roads to train stations have 4 or so routes running on it, because thats what the geography dicates.

http://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/timetablePDFs/Northern%2063%2020111106.pdf

[Jonas Jade]

I'm pondering the task of having to design/propose my first welfare/coverage route!!

I agree with Gazza and STB's posts.

But this quote stuck out to me - as per my previous post, the Cleveland line/590 connection should NOT be considered as a welfare route - that defies the whole point of the connection!

[somebody]

Can we please all take a chill pill.

TT, two routes is a valid point of view.  It doesn't have to be one as you insist.  A deviation is also valid.

[#Metro]

TT, two routes is a valid point of view.

If you have 2 routes, you will have half the frequency on each. For maximum frequency, consolidate 2 routes into one line.

It doesn't have to be one as you insist.  A deviation is also valid.

You're right, but it could be 4 routes running at hourly frequency if we wanted it to be. One route offers double frequency for little increase in cost, and therefore be more likely to be implemented. A deviation is also valid if you want that, indeed we could hang multiple dogs legs off the route if we wanted to, but for a route that is geared towards patronage, I think it would be better to spin off the dog leg section, cut the 599/598 and transfer the rest to a 590.

If you are against connections, you are against a network that freely allows people to move about, and are promoting a network that presupposes and dictates where people can travel

Yes, but as I keep saying, what's needed is a connection to the Cleveland line. There are many options for this.
It does not necessarily mean that the 599/598 should be retained.

[#Metro]

Whats this cr%p about it being ok to go via the CBD. That doesn't represent all trips, which is why RBoT has been calling for 15 min off peak in both directions.

Yes, but as I showed earlier, a person standing at Cannon Hill Station wanting to go to the northern suburbs would be just as good to go to the CBD and transfer to a train that goes past Toombul. It takes only 8 minutes longer, and with the deviation you propose via Cannon Hill, that 8 minutes time saving would also be obliterated. Also, the cost of doing this is very high - because you have to run 2 routes to do this, you force people to wait 30 minutes because you've split the frequency by having two routes.

Similarly, people for anywhere beyond Toombul -  Chermside, Brookside etc, would be better off going into the CBD.

I'll post step by step maps this evening so we can have a proper conversation about the different options and the advantages/disadvantages of each one.

[Gazza]

Yes, but as I showed earlier, a person standing at Cannon Hill Station wanting to go to the northern suburbs would be just as good to go to the CBD and transfer to a train that goes past Toombul. It takes only 8 minutes longer, and with the deviation you propose via Cannon Hill, that 8 minutes time saving would also be obliterated. Also, the cost of doing this is very high - because you have to run 2 routes to do this, you force people to wait 30 minutes because you've split the frequency by having two routes

SurfRail, STB etc are right, you are just ignoring the bits of posts.

Here, I'll quote it again to make it easier.

That doesn't represent all trips,

That doesn't represent all trips,

That doesn't represent all trips,

That doesn't represent all trips,

That doesn't represent all trips,

That doesn't represent all trips,

That doesn't represent all trips,

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Missing Cannon Hill means you aren't catering to other possible trips. Like say from South of Cannon hill to Cleveland, or any other of the combinations of trips I posed in that diagram. Explain how you didn't read that bit?

If you have 2 routes, you will have half the frequency on each. For maximum frequency, consolidate 2 routes into one line.

Not necessarily. 412 &  444 are both frequent.

[somebody]

It doesn't have to be one as you insist.  A deviation is also valid.

You're right, but it could be 4 routes running at hourly frequency if we wanted it to be. One route offers double frequency for little increase in cost, and therefore be more likely to be implemented. A deviation is also valid if you want that, indeed we could hang multiple dogs legs off the route if we wanted to, but for a route that is geared towards patronage, I think it would be better to spin off the dog leg section, cut the 599/598 and transfer the rest to a 590.

I don't know why you have this idea that there is funding for 4 buses per hour over the Gateway Bridge, no more, no less.  The 590+GCL don't run at that frequency except perhaps at certain times of day.

There may be justification for more frequent services.  Or there may not.

So you would advocate for removing that part of the GCL and increasing the 590?

[#Metro]

Missing Cannon Hill means you aren't catering to other possible trips. Like say from South of Cannon hill to Cleveland, or any other of the combinations of trips I posed in that diagram. Explain how you didn't read that bit?

Like I keep saying. The need for a connection does not imply that we have to retain the GCL, as there may be other options worth looking at that may allow a connection to the Cleveland line. For example, a 232 service or a deviated 590 service. 

I don't know why you have this idea that there is funding for 4 buses per hour over the Gateway Bridge, no more, no less.  The 590+GCL don't run at that frequency except perhaps at certain times of day.

If you have 2 routes both running at half hourly frequency, combining them into one route will allow the frequency to be doubled for little extra cost. Conversely, if you have 1 route that you split into two, the frequency will be divided into half. Geometry.

Not necessarily. 412 &  444 are both frequent.

Yeah, but all the other services that go down Coronation drive *aren't*. Gee whiz, I wonder why every single route going down Coro drive all aren't BUZzes? Oh, that would be because of budget constraints...

If you want to have 2 boosted services, this can be done, but this will come at significantly higher cost ($ millions) because duplication costs money. The other term for this is 'Waste'. It will also entrench legacy routing. For double the frequency at little or no extra cost,  combining two routes into one route will allow the frequency to be doubled for little extra cost.

Hopefully with the maps, the picture will be clearer.