Delete 222 and upgrade 209?

[SurfRail]

How about it?

Permanently can the 222 and use the resources to fund BUZing of the 169 and 209.  Absent any other major changes and if there are resources left, the 109 could be done as well so its span of hours is improved.  Interchange for the city at Buranda, or catch a 200 if you are further out.

And get all services to stop at Bridgewater/Kismet Street.

It's unlikely, but something to consider.

[somebody]

I think upgrading the 169 is a bigger priority than the 209.  And the 109, which still lacks trips after 10pm.  ONE of these services should be a BUZ IMO.

You'd also have to put the 200 into the Eastern Busway IMO.  Hesitating to do the same with the 204 wouldn't be logical.  I'm in two minds regarding Kismet St.

[Golliwog]

I'd support this over just BUZing the 169. The SE Busway has enough services that those down that way can catch to Buranda (off the top of my head: 77, 88, 111, 160, plus others joining from Mains Rd etc) so scraping the 222 to make a 209 BUZ seem like a great idea to me. Though probably unpopular with those near Stones Corner and Langlands Park who like their new-ish high frequency one seat journey to the city.

[#Metro]

Permanently can the 222 and use the resources to fund BUZing of the 169 and 209.  Absent any other major changes and if there are resources left, the 109 could be done as well so its span of hours is improved.  Interchange for the city at Buranda, or catch a 200 if you are further out.

None of these should be BUZzes.

222 should be retained. If anything 200 has more of a case to be removed.

[O_128]

Permanently can the 222 and use the resources to fund BUZing of the 169 and 209.  Absent any other major changes and if there are resources left, the 109 could be done as well so its span of hours is improved.  Interchange for the city at Buranda, or catch a 200 if you are further out.

None of these should be BUZzes.

222 should be retained. If anything 200 has more of a case to be removed.

and extend the 222 to carindale heights? or turn the 200 into a feeder and send the 222 to the sleeman centre

[Golliwog]

TT: why shouldn't they be BUZes?

[Gazza]

and extend the 222 to carindale heights? or turn the 200 into a feeder and send the 222 to the sleeman centre

+1 to that.

What serves Deshon St though?

[somebody]

What serves Deshon St though?

Nothing needs to.  Until recently there were no stops on Deshon St.

174/175 serve Logan Rd between Stones Corner & W'Gabba.

BTW, Which alternative were you +1'ing to?

There should be either a Carindale Heights via Eastern Busway service or a via Chatsworth Rd service.

[STB]

Can I suggest that that stop in Deshon St may of been put in due to possible feedback in the local area requesting one.  Just because it's only recently been put in doesn't give a good enough reason to pull it out so soon.

[somebody]

Can I suggest that that stop in Deshon St may of been put in due to possible feedback in the local area requesting one.  Just because it's only recently been put in doesn't give a good enough reason to pull it out so soon.

You can suggest that, but it isn't far from Logan Rd services (400-550m) and Vulture/Stanley and Eastern Busway aren't that far in other directions so I give this argument little weight.

There shouldn't be so many similar but slightly different services along Old Cleveland Rd!

[Golliwog]

Can I suggest that that stop in Deshon St may of been put in due to possible feedback in the local area requesting one.  Just because it's only recently been put in doesn't give a good enough reason to pull it out so soon.

You can suggest that, but it isn't far from Logan Rd services (400-550m) and Vulture/Stanley and Eastern Busway aren't that far in other directions so I give this argument little weight.

There shouldn't be so many similar but slightly different services along Old Cleveland Rd!

The stop itself may only be that far from Logan Rd, but what is 400-500m away from the stop in the other direction?

[somebody]

Can I suggest that that stop in Deshon St may of been put in due to possible feedback in the local area requesting one.  Just because it's only recently been put in doesn't give a good enough reason to pull it out so soon.

You can suggest that, but it isn't far from Logan Rd services (400-550m) and Vulture/Stanley and Eastern Busway aren't that far in other directions so I give this argument little weight.

There shouldn't be so many similar but slightly different services along Old Cleveland Rd!

The stop itself may only be that far from Logan Rd, but what is 400-500m away from the stop in the other direction?

I already answered that!  Refer to bits in bold.

Perhaps a bit on the far side for walking from some places but large parts of any city have areas which don't have a bus stop 300m away.  I can't accept this as a reason for a variation.  If you think it is, then I would say that is a stinging indictment of the Eastern Busway as a plan.

[#Metro]

Vulture / Stanley is not close and furthermore because they are one way streets, the access area around that is greatly reduced.
Eastern busway (stones corner) is also far, you have to cross a bridge steeped in mangroves and then walk quite a fair way.

To be honest, a coverage route should be sent down Deshon Street - 203.
Frequency and span is expensive to provide, putting a completely different BUZ down there for the sake of just that seems very wasteful.

I estimate that BUZ services cost around $3-6 million per year to operate, hardly worth it just for 1 or two stops on Deshon street.

I have a feeling TL is keeping that line because they want carindale bound pax to change at Wooloongabba not Mater Hill, and also I suspect/hypothesise
that Brisbane Transport also has a hand in retaining that route simply because 222 departs KGS while 200 departs from QSBS. They're not that far apart to walk
to in the city, but my feeling is that they like this split stop arrangement. What else explains the 160 departing from QSBS not KGS with the 111??

Of course the downside is huge annual multi-million dollar cost to run this luxury, and denied service to other areas in the network such as Bulimba, Centenary and Northwestern suburbs.

[somebody]

What else explains the 160 departing from QSBS not KGS with the 111??

Incompetence.

[STB]

Can I suggest that that stop in Deshon St may of been put in due to possible feedback in the local area requesting one.  Just because it's only recently been put in doesn't give a good enough reason to pull it out so soon.

You can suggest that, but it isn't far from Logan Rd services (400-550m) and Vulture/Stanley and Eastern Busway aren't that far in other directions so I give this argument little weight.

There shouldn't be so many similar but slightly different services along Old Cleveland Rd!

The stop itself may only be that far from Logan Rd, but what is 400-500m away from the stop in the other direction?

I already answered that!  Refer to bits in bold.

Perhaps a bit on the far side for walking from some places but large parts of any city have areas which don't have a bus stop 300m away.  I can't accept this as a reason for a variation.  If you think it is, then I would say that is a stinging indictment of the Eastern Busway as a plan.

Oops, sorry, been running around like a headless chook for the past week.  I wish I had more time in the week to do stuff. 

[Andrew]

What else explains the 160 departing from QSBS not KGS with the 111??

Incompetence.

Ha! Easy for you to say in your glass castle.  The 111 and 160 used to both leave from QSBS pre busway to Roma St.  The 111 now provides different destinations in the city to the 160 and links the SE Busway to Roma St Station allowing a one tranfer journey from Northern train lines as well as other bus services.  It should be noted that the 111 is still the top 10 for patronage on BT buses even after the introduction of the P88.

[somebody]

What else explains the 160 departing from QSBS not KGS with the 111??

Incompetence.

Ha! Easy for you to say in your glass castle.  The 111 and 160 used to both leave from QSBS pre busway to Roma St.  The 111 now provides different destinations in the city to the 160 and links the SE Busway to Roma St Station allowing a one tranfer journey from Northern train lines as well as other bus services.  It should be noted that the 111 is still the top 10 for patronage on BT buses even after the introduction of the P88.

I note that nothing which you have said contradicts what I have said.  160 provides different stop locations?  True, but who cares?

I'm interested in the top 10 patronage though.  Is that public info?

EDIT: I must re-iterate my previous comments.  160 in QSBS while 111 is in KGSBS is clear and very substantial incompetence.

[SurfRail]

I'm with Simon on this one.

Successful networks don't:
- Split frequency just to serve a different set of CBD bus stops;
- Have hundreds of different routes, especially where most of them are only variations with no significant geographical difference;
- Rely on single seat from everywhere to everywhere else, or everywhere regionwide to one point.

Why can't people leaving QSBS either:
- just walk to King George Square for a 111 to begin with
- catch any number of other buses serving stations along the busway from Queen Street
- change at the Cultural Centre

We could have a super-concentrated frequency on the 111 with double the current headways.  Instead, we make the system more complicated than it needs to be.

[somebody]

I'd add that a parallel in the Aviation industry (still a public transport industry by my reckoning) is split airports.  One of the classic cases of this is Montreal-Mirabel (YMX).  Basically, separating the service made transfers infuriating and led to its demise as a passenger airport.  Now it is used by freight only, serving less freight than the Dorval airport (YUL).  Mirabel is thus an enormous white elephant.

Other cities have split airports: Buenos Aires (sp?) is one example, and the split airport (EZE handles long range planes, AEP domestic + some others) is a large part of the reason why Qantas will soon cease flying there.  It would actually be easier to reach Brazil from Sydney via Buenos Aires otherwise.  Going via Santiago is a fair bit longer.

In some cases it is less clear like New York, San Fransisco, Chicago etc.  But the fact remains, that unless there is a really good reason (New York: capacity), it shouldn't be done.

[Golliwog]

Permanently can the 222 and use the resources to fund BUZing of the 169 and 209.  Absent any other major changes and if there are resources left, the 109 could be done as well so its span of hours is improved.  Interchange for the city at Buranda, or catch a 200 if you are further out.

None of these should be BUZzes.

222 should be retained. If anything 200 has more of a case to be removed.

TT: whats wrong with dropping the BUZ 222 in favour of a BUZ 209?

[SurfRail]

I'd add that a parallel in the Aviation industry (still a public transport industry by my reckoning) is split airports.  One of the classic cases of this is Montreal-Mirabel (YMX).  Basically, separating the service made transfers infuriating and led to its demise as a passenger airport.  Now it is used by freight only, serving less freight than the Dorval airport (YUL).  Mirabel is thus an enormous white elephant.

Other cities have split airports: Buenos Aires (sp?) is one example, and the split airport (EZE handles long range planes, AEP domestic + some others) is a large part of the reason why Qantas will soon cease flying there.  It would actually be easier to reach Brazil from Sydney via Buenos Aires otherwise.  Going via Santiago is a fair bit longer.

In some cases it is less clear like New York, San Fransisco, Chicago etc.  But the fact remains, that unless there is a really good reason (New York: capacity), it shouldn't be done.

There are some people who actually subscribe to this theory in respect of Brisbane and Coolangatta.  Personally I think the distances between, different markets and size of the respective cities served means Coolangatta is still quite justified (and I don't care what other people say, I LIKE not having aerobridges for a change!)

[#Metro]

There is more of a case to cut the 200 than the 222.

There is only minor difference between 200 and 222. 200 has a case to be cut.
203 can be routed up Deshon street to cover that area.

209 does not need to be a BUZ. 222 goes to the CBD and is required for legibility and to mop up pax from a cut 200.

[somebody]

There is more of a case to cut the 200 than the 222.

There is only minor difference between 200 and 222. 200 has a case to be cut.
203 can be routed up Deshon street to cover that area.

209 does not need to be a BUZ. 222 goes to the CBD and is required for legibility and to mop up pax from a cut 200.

Moving the 203 would leave some stops on O'Keefe St unserved.  I guess you have to choose what areas you are going to serve.

What is the distinction between the 200 & 222 as you see it?  One serve Roma St and the other doesn't?  I would assume you would tack on the Carindale Heights service to the 222 if the 200 was cut.

There are some people who actually subscribe to this theory in respect of Brisbane and Coolangatta.  Personally I think the distances between, different markets and size of the respective cities served means Coolangatta is still quite justified (and I don't care what other people say, I LIKE not having aerobridges for a change!)

If you closed OOL and MCY you'd have to build the parallel runway NOW.  Both airports are clearly far enough away from BNE to justify their existence, given the local populations.

[Gazza]

I would assume you would tack on the Carindale Heights service to the 222 if the 200 was cut.

I'd send the 222 to Sleeman Center, and have the 200 as a feeder.

[Andrew]

I note that nothing which you have said contradicts what I have said.  160 provides different stop locations?  True, but who cares?

I'm interested in the top 10 patronage though.  Is that public info?

EDIT: I must re-iterate my previous comments.  160 in QSBS while 111 is in KGSBS is clear and very substantial incompetence.

Point is Roma St and QSBS are different destinations Simon and people do care about that.  I don't think you can call that incompetence.  It actually increases capacity at both QSBS and KGS by having them seperate.  If you put all your eggs in one basket, your basket gets too full.

As the for the top 10 patronage, it was up mid last year on the screens at work (although they weren't the final financial year figures for FY10-11).  It didn't have the actual patronage numbers just the order.

1. 199
2. 150
3. 130
4. 333
I can't remember the exact order of the rest:
385, 444, 111 (I think it was number 8 ), 140, 200 and the CityGlider came in at number 10.

[Gazza]

Point is Roma St and QSBS are different destinations

Yeah, but you cant say the same for QSBS and KGS! They are a mere 200m apart!

111s & P88s stop at KGS too!

We cant afford for every major bus route to have a dumb variant that terminates in a slighly different location in spitting distance because people are fussy.
Its a huge waste of resources to be competing with themselves, when so many parts of the network need more buses.

Guess what, I live on the rail network and commute from Oxley, and I can only get out at Roma St or Central. One stopping pattern for me, all stations.
Rail passengers manage to make do with the one set of stations, and at best 2 stopping patterns, then why do bus traveller suddenly need 'bonus choices' like the 111 and 160?

And by the way, to exit Roma St from the Ipswich line platforms is a 250m walk, so I think the 160 should be converted into extra 111 runs, and the precious petals can make the 200m walk back to Queen St Mall, if that was their destination.

Point is, 160s are underused compared to 111s, you might find off peak that 8 bph of 111 & 160 combined could be dropped back to say 6bph of only 111s, and still be happily carrying the load.

Delete the 160 for sure...I mean, whats next. What if the 333 gets really popular once the Northern Busway opens? Will they do a Chermside route that finishes at QSBS as a means of making sure all the eggs arent in one basket? lol!  

[Andrew]

Point is Roma St and QSBS are different destinations

Yeah, but you cant say the same for QSBS and KGS! They are a mere 200m apart!

111s & P88s stop at KGS too!

We cant afford for every major bus route to have a dumb variant that terminates in a slighly different location in spitting distance.
Its a huge waste of resources to be competing with themselves, when so many parts of the network need more buses.

I agree that parts of the network need more buses.  I actually think the 160 compliments the 111 rather than competing against it and adds more capacity along the bulk of the route.  As I said in the reply to simon above, you can't put all your eggs in one basket.  In railway terms, you can't put all your trains on the one platform.  As silly as it might seem on the surface of things, having two different stops actually gives you more capability to put on more services as you can add them where you have the most capacity at the time.

Guess what, I live on the rail network and commute from Oxley, and I can only get out at Roma St or Central. One stopping pattern for me, all stations.
Rail passengers manage to make do with the one set of stations, and at best 2 stopping patterns, then why do bus traveller suddenly need 'bonus choices' like the 111 and 160?

Do I detect a hint of green eyes here?  Each mode has its benefits and weaknesses.  Trains are perceived by many commuters IMO to be cleaner, smoother and faster.  They don't get held up by traffic jams caused by cars and will generally be less likely to be delayed.  The downside is that the stops, particularly in the CBD are somewhat limited.  Buses on the other hand are perceived by many IMO to be dirty, noisy, crowded and rough.  They get stuck in traffic (even with buses on the Busway sometimes) and can be quite unreliable.  The advantage of the bus though is it can stop at closer intervals and is more flexible as far as routing is concerned.   I'd reckon most commuters would choose train over bus given a comparable journey.

When you analyse the patronage flows too, you have to remember the size difference too.  Assuming the same journey for all the pax you have 1x6 car train = up to 1000 pax stopping at one or two stops in the CBD.  A full 6 car train is equivalent to about 10 full artic buses or 14-15 full rigid buses.  So 1 train would be equivalent to about 10 - 15 buses on several routes utilising maybe 8-10 stops throughout the CBD.

The reason why you can have multiple routes is because of the fundamental differences in the way each mode operate.  A train isn't a bus and vice versa.  Each must be treated differently.

And by the way, to exit Roma St from the Ipswich line platforms is a 250m walk, so I think the 160 should be converted into extra 111 runs, and the precious petals can make the 200m walk back to Queen St Mall, if that was their destination.

Point is, 160s are underused compared to 111s, you might find off peak and on weekends that 8 bph of 111 & 160 could be dropped back to say 6bph, and still be happily carrying the load.

Well for starters the 160 doesn't run on weekends, though in my experience, it really depends how long it's been since the last bus came along.  You can have 160's carting a lot of air or with full seated loads depending on the time of day and how other buses are running.

[Gazza]

I actually think the 160 compliments the 111 rather than competing against it and adds more capacity along the bulk of the route.  As I said in the reply to simon above, you can't put all your eggs in one basket.

But it only adds capacity properly on the inbound!

You are at say Greenslopes and want to go to the CBD...Grab the first 160 or 111 (or P88)...cool! 7.5 min average frequency. 5 min average frequency with P88 included. Fantastic!

Now, you want to go home again, but its a choice between walking to KGS or to QSBS.
Naturally you go to KGS because you can pick from the P88 or 111, which offers better combined frequency  and bigger buses than the 160 on its lonesome.
Guess which ones get overcrowded and which ones get empty.

I think its BS to say that you couldn't have 111s only.

In railway terms, you can't put all your trains on the one platform.

But you can have them all in the same station at least!

Why not have the 160 leaving from the stop next to the 111, and then shuffle out another route from KGS that doesn't need to be there.

How do you explain the 111 and 160 being able to share the same station in the past, but not being able to do it now, despite more platform capacity in the CBD.

The advantage of the bus though is it can stop at closer intervals and is more flexible as far as routing is concerned.

This flexibility you speak of? Why is it buses retain so many historical oddities and bad routing, if it could be fixed very easily?

Each must be treated differently.

Why cant you have it like everywhere else in the world where you try to provide a more rail like experience with buses. This means simple route structures and designs, say only 1 or 2 buses per main road (except for obvious areas of unavoidable convergence)

Brisbanes bus network design is tits, which is why it achieves such low mode share.

Do I detect a hint of green eyes here?

Not at all, I just think the network needs the kiss principle applied, and be designed to be useful to the majority, rather than designing 101 niche variants that only serve to waste resources and create confusion.

[SurfRail]

Brisbanes bus network design is tits, which is why it achieves such low mode share.

But they are "winning" the competition against the trains, so no changes are needed.  QED.

[Gazza]

Also worth pointing out, our #1  and most frequent Bus route the 199, manages to do its job, whist sharing stops with the 196, and another top tenner, the CityGlider.

But the 160 and 111 cant 

[HappyTrainGuy]

Brisbanes bus network design is tits, which is why it achieves such low mode share.

But they are "winning" the competition against the trains, so no changes are needed.  QED.

With about 30x the amount of bus routes to train routes

[Golliwog]

There is more of a case to cut the 200 than the 222.

There is only minor difference between 200 and 222. 200 has a case to be cut.
203 can be routed up Deshon street to cover that area.

209 does not need to be a BUZ. 222 goes to the CBD and is required for legibility and to mop up pax from a cut 200.

If theres only a minor difference between them, why cut the route that serves the longer distance and goes past Carindale? Deshon St VS. EB I'll admit could be a bit of a complaint, but I don't see it being a reason to cull it, and if CBD stop location is your problem, then if you cut the 222, you can shift the 200 to serve its city stops.

As for the 209 not needing to be a BUZ, you may be correct here, however there is IMO a need for a BUZ across to UQ Lakes to provide a later evening service, and I can't see OCR requiring 2 city bound BUZ routes in the evening. Sure, maybe don't scrap the 222 entirely, but run it something similar to how the 209 runs now. If people really need the extra frequency on OCR in the evening then either get a 200, or change from a 209 to anything at Buranda.

[Gazza]

BUZ 29 Lol.

[somebody]

But they are "winning" the competition against the trains, so no changes are needed.  QED.

Interesting point.  The most urgent changes should be to the trains then.  We know what changes we would make.

Point is Roma St and QSBS are different destinations Simon and people do care about that.  I don't think you can call that incompetence.  It actually increases capacity at both QSBS and KGS by having them seperate.  If you put all your eggs in one basket, your basket gets too full.

As the for the top 10 patronage, it was up mid last year on the screens at work (although they weren't the final financial year figures for FY10-11).  It didn't have the actual patronage numbers just the order.

1. 199
2. 150
3. 130
4. 333
I can't remember the exact order of the rest:
385, 444, 111 (I think it was number 8 ), 140, 200 and the CityGlider came in at number 10.

a) People can interchange at the Cultural Centre for Roma St
b) You can certainly call it incompetence.  As far as I am concerned it is not an arguable point that it is incompetence.
c) Your basket is only too full if you screw up and put too much in it
d) 385 busier than 345 now?
e) good to see the 140 getting up there.

[#Metro]

If theres only a minor difference between them, why cut the route that serves the longer distance and goes past Carindale? Deshon St VS. EB I'll admit could be a bit of a complaint, but I don't see it being a reason to cull it, and if CBD stop location is your problem, then if you cut the 222, you can shift the 200 to serve its city stops.

Well if you want to serve the bit past Carindale, just tack that extra bit onto the end of the 222 and abolish the rest of the 200. Problem solved.

As for the 209 not needing to be a BUZ, you may be correct here, however there is IMO a need for a BUZ across to UQ Lakes to provide a later evening service, and I can't see OCR requiring 2 city bound BUZ routes in the evening. Sure, maybe don't scrap the 222 entirely, but run it something similar to how the 209 runs now. If people really need the extra frequency on OCR in the evening then either get a 200, or change from a 209 to anything at Buranda.

People late at night at UQ have (a) the ferry, (b) can walk across the bridge and get 196 or (c) catch BUZ 412 and then change.

I agree with you though, the last services at night should be 209's because they allow transfer at Buranda to destinations in all directions, while 109's do not.

[Golliwog]

But how do any of those 3 options for late night UQ provide any kind of decent connection for people wanting to go to/from the southside? They don't. Changing in the city is a ridiculous hassle when Park Rd and Buranda are RIGHT THERE, a few minutes away on a bus. Walking UQ Lakes to Park Rd takes 15 minutes, so only going to the 196 would probably be only 10 minutes.

[somebody]

I agree with you though, the last services at night should be 209's because they allow transfer at Buranda to destinations in all directions, while 109's do not.

Incorrect!

The 209 does not allow transfer to via W'Gabba routes: 100, 110, 124, 125, 210, 212, 215, 220, 230, 235.  I suppose technically you can transfer to 184/185 where they cross O-C Rd.

109 would allow these transfers, and all transfers which the 209 would allow.

I don't include 105, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 172 as these won't be operating at/after 9pm.

[Andrew]

a) People can interchange at the Cultural Centre for Roma St

This is an excellent point and many people do from bus routes that do not have Roma St options.  I just think this one should be left as is because they are trunk routes along the busway.

b) You can certainly call it incompetence.  As far as I am concerned it is not an arguable point that it is incompetence.

We'll have to agree to disagree then on that I think to keep the peace.   My response below might give you some reasoning behind my position.

c) Your basket is only too full if you screw up and put too much in it

What I was trying to allude to in that analogy is stop capacity.  The 111 goes every 5 mins (12 buses/hr) in peak.  If you converted the 160's to 111's, that would raise it by another 6 buses to 18 b/hr.  This would equal a bus every 3-4 mins.  On paper this is quite achievable and allows some dwell time for each bus at KGS.  This will vary in practice as things don't always run as they should and buses will bunch up and cause congestion at KGS waiting to get on the stop.  At QSBS, you can do the block if someone's on your stop because they're running late which makes the congestion more manageable.  Also when both were in QSBS, you could use either A9 or A10 to load so you have the same amount of stops now as you did then.  Putting them all at KGS will be a REDUCTION in stop capacity which is the main point I'm trying to convey and is why I'm against what you guys are suggesting.  The suggested change will be a step backwards and make future growth without major change almost impossible.

You quite rightly pointed out the 199, 196 and Glider seem to co-exist ok at stops through the city.  This is in part due to the length of the stops.  Stop 20 Adelaide St can take 3 buses, Stop 25 - two at a squeeze, Stop 29- two at a squeeze (remembering this is also shared with the 300 et al as well), Orient Hotel Stop 67 - the whole block if needed, Stop 226 - 2 buses, Stop 205 - 2 buses (3 if you block the carpark entry), Stop 36 - 2 buses, Stop 43 - 2 buses.  KGS you have space for 1 bus and 1 bus only at a time.  Also remembering that many services are high capacity vehicles too. 

d) 385 busier than 345 now?e) good to see the 140 getting up there.

well it could have been 345 not 385.  It was well over 6 months ago that it was up on the screens.  The 345 does have the 343 so that may have made an impact.

[Andrew]

I think the 200, 209 and 222 should be left on their current routings for the moment.  I would be in favour of extending the 222 to Sleeman Centre though.  It would give a BUZ service level to there.  The Deshon St conundrum is an interesting one. 

I think long term changing the 200 would be feasable.  I don't think making it a feeder only would be very successful though as you're not giving people a comparable service to what they had.  And if the feeders are more often and each one connects with a 222, then why not keep them as is already?  I think perhaps changing the 200 to stop at less stops between Carindale and the Gabba would be a possibility.  Ideally you could have it avoid the Gabba altogether and run express via the busway or something from Coorparoo to Mater Hill or something like that.  You would have to put something down Deshon St to service those stops though because it is in a bit of a transport black hole so to speak.  Perhaps you could have a bastardised version of the 206 to help the 204 out?  Run from either UQ Lakes or the Gabba, via Deshon St limited stops to Carina then all stops via the 204 route to Carindale.

The other thing that may be feasable is to re-route the 200 via the 201 route with some more express stops placed along there at strategic places.  I know that suggestion has been mooted before.  Perhaps even have it go up Pembroke St on to Old Cleveland Rd before Langlands Park and then pick up the current route  .  I think you would have to do a consultation for the Carindale Heights area before you did any major change like that.

[#Metro]

This would equal a bus every 3-4 mins.  On paper this is quite achievable and allows some dwell time for each bus at KGS.  This will vary in practice as things don't always run as they should and buses will bunch up and cause congestion at KGS waiting to get on the stop.  At QSBS, you can do the block if someone's on your stop because they're running late which makes the congestion more manageable.  Also when both were in QSBS, you could use either A9 or A10 to load so you have the same amount of stops now as you did then.  Putting them all at KGS will be a REDUCTION in stop capacity which is the main point I'm trying to convey and is why I'm against what you guys are suggesting.  The suggested change will be a step backwards and make future growth without major change almost impossible.

I'm skeptical. If another 111 comes up behind, first driver closes the doors and speeds off.
Next bus comes in.