590 Reportback

[Gazza]

a deviated 590 service.

Make up your mind. You were making the deviation sound like the end of the world.

[#Metro]

Make up your mind. You were making the deviation sound like the end of the world.

I thought we were just having a discussion about different options and the merits of that. When the maps are put up, we'll have a clearer picture of each option.

[Gazza]

I thought we were just having a discussion about different options and the merits of that.

Guess that explains why no matter what anyone wrote, you'd just reply with that generic bolded quote about cuts hey?
Some discussion 

[#Metro]

Guess that explains why no matter what anyone wrote, you'd just reply with that generic bolded quote about cuts hey?
Some discussion 

Yeah, thanks for your contributions, glad you liked it. 

[Gazza]

glad you liked it.

I didn't like it, nor did STB or SurfRail by the sounds of it.

[SurfRail]

I think TT that you see things in absolutes which are not necessarily always the only alternatives.  (Only an observation.  )

[#Metro]

Thank you everyone for your generous feedback 
I've read through the thread, and as I promised, here are some maps and suggestions to follow. 

Thanks again everybody 

[#Metro]

The problem and current situation

The current setup has the GCL (orange) and 590 (blue). Bulimba 232 is also included for reference (green).

* As a result, both routes run at low frequency (30 minutes off-peak)
and they can't be co-ordinated or have an even frequency because the
GCL is a circle. This is a violation of CFN principles.

[#Metro]

* Combining the two (abolish the GCL in this section, transfer funds to boost 590, and deviate the 590 via Murrarie) will result in a 15 minute CFN service (thick red line), simpler routing, and network simplicity using little or no new funding, however this causes coverage problems (see the big gap) because Metroplex can't be served. There's also a lot of development estates along creek road with impenetrable local streets that a bus can't squeeze through (WHY was this allowed!?!)

[#Metro]

The simplest solution, after considering the feedback and valuable discussion in this thread, is to extend the half hourly 210 service (purple line) that terminates at Cannon Hill to metroplex, and terminate the 210 there. A small deviation into to the estate on creek road (in and turnaround) could also be done at minimal cost using the funds from the abolished GCL in this section. If you wanted to, you could put in a second stop in that area and serve Borthwick Ave too.

So in conclusion, the GCL can be safely abolished provided that the 210 is extended and the 590 is diverted slightly down Queensport Road (it is also more direct this way too). Going via Cannon Hill is a huge deviation, 232 already serves that (that legacy route is another story) and I'd strongly suggest against that.

So the question now is, will TL planners consider this?

CUT!!   



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

[somebody]

The simplest solution, after considering the feedback and valuable discussion in this thread, is to extend the half hourly 210 service (purple line) that terminates at Cannon Hill to metroplex, and terminate the 210 there. A small deviation into to the estate on creek road (in and turnaround) could also be done at minimal cost using the funds from the abolished GCL in this section. If you wanted to, you could put in a second stop in that area and serve Borthwick Ave too.

So in conclusion, the GCL can be safely abolished provided that the 210 is extended and the 590 is diverted slightly down Queensport Road (it is also more direct this way too). Going via Cannon Hill is a huge deviation, 232 already serves that (that legacy route is another story) and I'd strongly suggest against that.

Pretty reasonable suggestion.  Current Metroplex service doesn't connect the city or busway except Garden City.

[#Metro]

Thank you Simon, and also for your discussion in this thread 

Maybe we should rip off a QR Slogan eh?

Core Frequent Network - Super Simple Stuff

[#Metro]

590 Reportback - 24 December 2012

Journey: Brisbane Airport - Garden City, missed Airtrain, wanted to try something different.

I've just got off the plane at Brisbane Airport, and as discussed in another thread, it always seems that as soon as you are done with getting your baggage off the carousel, you have about 60 seconds to rush up to the station and catch the train. Well it happened AGAIN and I couldn't be assed waiting another 30 minutes for the train.

So I walked out of the terminal and caught the T-bus to Airport Village. It was free. When I got to Airport Village I planned to get the 369, but a 590 just turned up so I caught that instead.

We picked up one pax just heading out of the airport precinct and another one at Metroplex. I think there were a few more pax but when it got to Carindale, 15 people jumped on and more people got on the way to Garden City. For a half hourly route in the very quiet period just after midday, this is great. Now I can't say I understand the logic of going from one major suburban shopping centre to another major suburban shopping centre when they're both Westfields with near identical stores in them both, but most people stayed on the bus until Garden City.

So despite the TransLink website rating this as "low value for money" and "low patronage" I think this route is actually quite good for a cross town given that a) it is holiday period so much quieter, b) it is only half hourly frequency and c) it is in direct competition with the GCL which steals patronage.

My recommendation would be to extend 210 or a similar bus route to Metroplex, which would allow the GCL and 590 to be amalgamated and act as a 15-minute service between the Southside and Airport. Another bus covering metroplex would free up the new route to connect also the the Cleveland Line at Murrarie.

Furthermore, I would adopt SurfRail's suggestion and extend this bus from DFO to Toombul and then terminate it at Kedron Brook Busway turnaround. This will ensure even loading in both directions and a good load carried at all times, plus northside busway connections at Kedron Brook AND at Eagle Junction Train Station.

Route 369 could be shortened to a) terminate at Kedron Brook busway (too short a route - not recommended), b) continue to Toombul (duplication- seems expensive) or c) be routed to continue to the CBD (seems best, will grow patronage). CBD routing would allow the crosstown function to be retained while generating new patronage from the latent patronage that was calculated in the 369 thread by connecting to RBWH, QUT and CBD (crosstown pax simply change at Kedron Busway to new GCL/590 amalgamated route, 15 minute frequency so it will be easy).

I think the main reason why the 590 looks bad is because the GCL is splitting the patronage, fix this by amalgamation and re-routing and the stats will look much better.

[Golliwog]

369 to the City is a bad idea. Trying to make one route both a cross suburbs route AND a CBD bound route isn't a good idea and goes against the principle of designing a route for one goal. Design for more than that and you're likely to fail at all of them. Having the 369 and 590 overlap a little isn't the end of the world, though I don't think the 590 needs to go past Toombul. Keep that for the 369, as you point out the 590 has pax going from Carindale to Garden City, the 369 should also be getting those going Toombul to Stafford/Brookside.

[#Metro]

It may not be apparent now but kedron brook as with other busways is likely to become a major place to do interchange.

I would agree with you but given the data in the bus review on 369, plus my own trips on it, if it doesn't pick up more pax soon, there will have to be changes. I don't see why markets can't be combined, so I think it is possible to do. Of course 369 is still very new, so it may be worth giving it a little more time to bed down. People do make cross town trips, and my trip on the 590 today confirms this.

[Gazza]

and goes against the principle of designing a route for one goal.

A route can do multiple things, so long as it does them both without compromise.

Also, since when it is a principle that a route should be designed for one goal.
The best routes are ones usable by lots of people for lots of purposes, which generates high patronage.

[Golliwog]

and goes against the principle of designing a route for one goal.

A route can do multiple things, so long as it does them both without compromise.

Also, since when it is a principle that a route should be designed for one goal.
The best routes are ones usable by lots of people for lots of purposes, which generates high patronage.

I'm not sure if I still have a copy of the lecture slides, but it was a guest lecture from a guy from MR Cagney. I'm talking a more broad definition of 'purpose' here. Coverage route (windy, covers lots of places, indirect) VS Patronage Route (direct, covers fewer places, fast).

While the existing 369 is still a direct route, changing it so that it covers some of the existing route, then heads to the city is silly. No one (or at least very few) from Mitchelton to somewhere around Stafford would use it for the City part as they have more direct options (train, 345, 350, etc) and these people now have to interchange to get past Kedron Brook if they were looking at going to Toombul. Meanwhile, it's not going to do much on the Northern Busway corridor, as this is already well served by all the existing routes.

tl;dr
Making the 369 divert to the city is silly because it doesn't give anyone a direct route to the city doesn't already have one.

[#Metro]

Golliwog, perhaps you meant 'one section, one line'?

Coverage route (windy, covers lots of places, indirect) VS Patronage Route (direct, covers fewer places, fast).

I don't dispute this, but I also believe that the intent of the route will be preserved regardless of city connection.

While the existing 369 is still a direct route, changing it so that it covers some of the existing route, then heads to the city is silly. No one (or at least very few) from Mitchelton to somewhere around Stafford would use it for the City part as they have more direct options (train, 345, 350, etc) and these people now have to interchange to get past Kedron Brook if they were looking at going to Toombul. Meanwhile, it's not going to do much on the Northern Busway corridor, as this is already well served by all the existing routes.

tl;dr
Making the 369 divert to the city is silly because it doesn't give anyone a direct route to the city doesn't already have one.

Well I would dispute this. We are still trying to get a BUZ up Old Northern Road. Regardless of what one may say, the bus isn't carrying decent patronage on the western section, and we have to accept and process this information now that we have real world results and make a decision on it for a change if things do not improve soon because it has been intended to be a patronage route.

Proof will be in the pudding if TL decides to send it to the CBD via the Nth Busway. It would be a simple, neat and fast route.

[Golliwog]

Simple and neat, maybe. But fast? From Mitchelton, travelling via Stafford Rd to the City is much slower than the alternatives of the 390 or FG line. Ditto for those in Everton Park being faster to go via the Old Northern/South Pine Rd corridor, and for those in Stafford to use the 345, 325 or 335. The only people along this route who this might give a faster route to the city to would be those east of Webster Rd, who already have the 375. So yes, those along Stafford Rd might have a simpler, one seat journey to the city. But I thought the idea was to limit the number of routes that go to the CBD to those that actually need to?

[#Metro]

Yes or No: Would you like to continue to run a empty bus @ 15 min frequencies west of Kedron Brook or what is your alternative proposal? At least this proposal retains cross town function plus also has city pax as well.

[Golliwog]

Yes or No: Would you like to continue to run a empty bus @ 15 min frequencies west of Kedron Brook or what is your alternative proposal? At least this proposal retains cross town function plus also has city pax as well.

It's not empty. I've used it a few times and it usually averages a half dozen along that section. As I've supported previously, I'd go for first of, letting it settle in before making any big changes, it's barely 6 months old, and has been poorly advertised to locals. I'd also go for reviewing existing routes that run along sections of Stafford Rd (like the 353) and seeing if they really need to do so. The 369 was added when they opened the Northern Busway and they played with the routes in that corridor, but really did nothing east of the busway, other than throw this in.

As I've said a few times now, these city passengers you keep spruiking are either idiots who are willing to go the long way around just to have a single seat/not walk to the nearest existing city bound corridor, or are going to be taken away from existing routes on the Northern Busway.

I'd rather those on the Northern Busway continue to fill up the existing routes, and that we don't pander to those who want their one seat journey to everywhere. So yes, I do support continuing to run the 369 at 15 minute frequencies.

[#Metro]

It's not empty. I've used it a few times and it usually averages a half dozen along that section.

Times and days please? I have been on it last week and this week and before that as well and it's been empty or almost so along Stafford Road. This is concerning because from density calculations we can work out how much latent demand should be along stafford road, and by those calculations, the bus should be carrying at least 15 passengers by the time it hops off stafford road.

As I've supported previously, I'd go for first of, letting it settle in before making any big changes, it's barely 6 months old, and has been poorly advertised to locals.

Of course we are both in agreement about this, but that said, now is the time to think up alternatives if it doesn't pick up or show signs of improvement.

I'd also go for reviewing existing routes that run along sections of Stafford Rd (like the 353) and seeing if they really need to do so. The 369 was added when they opened the Northern Busway and they played with the routes in that corridor, but really did nothing east of the busway, other than throw this in.

Yes, I noticed a few other routes use short sections of Stafford Road, can't see why 375 still needs to use Stafford Road, perhaps that could approach from the back of the shopping centre.

As I've said a few times now, these city passengers you keep spruiking are either idiots who are willing to go the long way around just to have a single seat/not walk to the nearest existing city bound corridor, or are going to be taken away from existing routes on the Northern Busway.

What can I say. I'm a pragmatic person and the ultimate test is 'does it work'. If it doesn't then I make changes.
We have real-world data now, which we didn't have before the route was proposed.

I'd rather those on the Northern Busway continue to fill up the existing routes, and that we don't pander to those who want their one seat journey to everywhere. So yes, I do support continuing to run the 369 at 15 minute frequencies.

*IF* it doesn't fill up more soon, then I'm sure TL will apply changes.

[Golliwog]

I'm not going to say I'm a frequent user of it, but in the last month I've used it to get from Brookside to Stafford and back, and from Brookside to Chermside and back with a stop on the way back at Stafford. Pretty sure I posted about those on the board here somewhere, and while it was empty or near empty on one of those, the others did alright I though. The more I think about those numbers you came up with in the other thread, the more I don't like them/the way they're being used.

Now is not the time though, seeing as its still getting settled and the problems it may or may not have can change. I'm going to repeat that I don't think any of the problems with the route are any short comings of the route itself, rather the poor advertising of the service with locals, and competition with other routes/the car.

Is your 'real world data' anything more than your anecdotal evidence from a few trips you made on it though?

[#Metro]

The more I think about those numbers you came up with in the other thread, the more I don't like them/the way they're being used.

All I did was use a simple model going from density ---> trips based on the Martinovich slides to make a rough estimate of how much PT demand we should theoretically see along that corridor, and revise it down a bit to be in the ballpark. That's all. It is the best estimate we have so far, unless someone wants to propose an alternative calculation.

Is your 'real world data' anything more than your anecdotal evidence from a few trips you made on it though?

No, it's from the TL review website which had it listed 'low patronage', 'low value for money' and the indication that frequency cuts may be slated for it. What you say about it being very new is true though. I remember when the 345 was buzzed, it took a few months before the empty buses started to fill up.

[SurfRail]

I still think my suggestion is worth pursuing.  A modified version of what I proposed for the bus review is set out here.  Same basic route except instead of doing all that mucking around at Kedron Brook, it goes down Richmond and Bradshaw, cuts across through Lutwyche to Kalinga and does not go to the Aviation Precinct after the DFO.

This would be combined with getting rid of the Valley to Stafford section of the 375 completely, deleting route 321 completely and replacing the Spring Hill bit with a replacement route from the RBWH (I said the 393) and minor adjustments to surrounding routes in the area (320, 346, 353, 354).

I think the 369 would generate a lot more patronage this way by removing the competing routes, getting people used to an interchange-oriented environment, adding another trip generator (the Lutwyche shops in lieu of Kedron Brook which is largely in the middle of nowhere) and maintaining the cross-town routing.

[somebody]

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

I'm confused by this plan.

[achiruel]

How would this go for a 210 extensions?

[#Metro]

I would be inclined to send it straight up creek road with no deviations; however the "right" route depends on the intent of the service - is it a community service obligation route or a patronage route in this section?

As an aside, I also want to expand on a point that Jonno made - if you want slow, safe streets with few cars, you make your streets bendy, windy and indirect, like in the image above. The side effect of this is that it has a disproportionate effect on public transport which is already slow due to having to stop at bus stops, even more slow (due to much lower speed limits on local streets) and traffic calming and indirectness.

Of course, the unintended consequence of this is that (a) it becomes far more expensive to run buses around in wiggles than in straight lines (b) the reduction in speed uses up more labour which (c) causes a direct reduction in service frequency and the indirectness also turns passengers off.

= car-topia!

Take note - be careful what you wish for - you might just get it!

[somebody]

I agree with TT.  The loop into Calliope Circuit serves no purpose and slows things down.

[#Metro]

I agree with TT.  The loop into Calliope Circuit serves no purpose and slows things down.

This is a neat demonstration of there being no "right" answer. If we wanted CSO routing, we'd value access over speed and send the bus on the diversion. If we value speed and it was a patronage service, we'd steam iron it.

A new estate is unlikely to have older folks in it, more likely 1st home buyers and cars galore - we can check the demographics when deciding what kind of service is should be.

Personally I'd go straight down creek road.

[achiruel]

In fact, I know Creek Rd is the most direct Route, but would going via Barrack Rd be better, as it gives the interchange opportunity at Cannon Hill Station ?

Otherwise commuters to Metroplex on the Cleveland line have to get off at Murrarie and catch the 590 to Cannon Hill then change to a (potential) extended 210, it seems a bit excessive to have two transfers for such a short journey.

I still agree that the best possible solution would be closing both stations and a new one on Creek Rd where both the 590 and 210 could stop, but as others have said it would cost big $.

Also while I'm looking at routes of the area, 214/215/220 travelling via Wickham St rather than Waminda St through Morningside, thus avoiding the opportunity of interchange at Morningside station (and if you don't mind the walk over the station, Wynnum Rd buses 227/235/).  Should this be fixed? Or is interchange at Norman Park sufficient (obviously only with train there though as it's a long walk to Wynnum Rd).

[somebody]

The whole point of sending the 210 into Metroplex is so the 590 doesn't have to serve it, and can serve Murarrie station instead, so I'm confused by your comments.

[STB]

Just send it via Barrack Road to service Cannon Hill station (would only add about 5mins) and extend to Toombul, nothing too fancy is needed.

[achiruel]

Yes, the 590 doesn't have to serve Metroplex, the 210 will, but I think the 210 also needs a rail connection.

Imagine someone commuting from say Wynnum to Metroplex, they get on the train, get off at Murrarie, take 590 to Cannon Hill, then 210 to Metroplex.

I'm not against transfers, but I think enforcing a transfer for such a short journey (I mean the Murrarie to Metroplex bit, not from Wynnum), particularly as the 210 will be relatively low frequency 30 minutes, giving a long potential waiting time and discouraging potential users to the extent they think they may as well just take the car.

So I think 210 extension should also have a rail connection.

[somebody]

Just send it via Barrack Road to service Cannon Hill station (would only add about 5mins) and extend to Toombul, nothing too fancy is needed.

Not a fan of 590 via Barrack Rd.  It's slower than it needs to be and it's achievable to do better.

Yes, the 590 doesn't have to serve Metroplex, the 210 will, but I think the 210 also needs a rail connection.

Imagine someone commuting from say Wynnum to Metroplex, they get on the train, get off at Murrarie, take 590 to Cannon Hill, then 210 to Metroplex.

I'm not against transfers, but I think enforcing a transfer for such a short journey (I mean the Murrarie to Metroplex bit, not from Wynnum), particularly as the 210 will be relatively low frequency 30 minutes, giving a long potential waiting time and discouraging potential users to the extent they think they may as well just take the car.

So I think 210 extension should also have a rail connection.

I think the extension will get so little use that it's probably not a big problem to have a deviation, and it also connects Cannon Hill rail with the bus station which could be a positive.

[Golliwog]

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

I'm confused by this plan.

It adds an interchange, if that's what you mean? If there's a frequent service running along Stafford Rd then it shouldn't be hard or inconvenient for someone to catch a 369 along Stafford Rd to any of the north-south corridors that it crosses that are currently served by CBD bound buses.

[#Metro]

In fact, I know Creek Rd is the most direct Route, but would going via Barrack Rd be better, as it gives the interchange opportunity at Cannon Hill Station ?

Otherwise commuters to Metroplex on the Cleveland line have to get off at Murrarie and catch the 590 to Cannon Hill then change to a (potential) extended 210, it seems a bit excessive to have two transfers for such a short journey.

I still agree that the best possible solution would be closing both stations and a new one on Creek Rd where both the 590 and 210 could stop, but as others have said it would cost big $.

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.

[#Metro]

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.

[STB]

Route 590 is generally has okay loads (around half loads) from my experiences, so not surprised there.

Also TT weren't you going elsewhere but Brisbane eventually?

[SurfRail]

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?