Delete 222 and upgrade 209?

[#Metro]

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.

Route 200 - CUT!!

What is so special about Deshon Street? It's a local road and not a very lengthy one either. It goes through an industrial area.
Any 'special bits' that 200 has can be tacked on to the end of 222. 203 can be routed up there. Deleting route 200 will make the network simpler as well.

If people get upset, or BT doesn't like it, move 204 and 203 into the QSBS to make up for the deletion of BUZ 200.

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.

I think half the services that the 200 does (2 buses per hour) should be shifted over to the 222. This would make the 222 run every 10 minutes all day, which is plenty of frequency.
The other 2 trips release $$$ which can be re-allocated towards BUZ 235 and BUZ 230 Bulimba to complete the Core Frequent Network (CFN). This will cause a DOUBLING of patronage on those lines. When you cut waste, you create $$$ to spend on more useful services that people want and need.

[somebody]

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

Yeah, right.

How long have you lived in Brisbane?  This might happen in Sydney, but Brisbane is just different.

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. 

In the PM peak I would be in favour of the 160 starting from the Cultural Centre.  Stops Buranda-Garden City-8MP should be served by a Captain Cook Bridge route(s) leaving from KGSBS though.

The other point I would make here is that there are 2 unused stops in KGSBS southbound.  I imagine sometimes these get used in the scenarios you refer to, but two from six seems overkill.

[Andrew]

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

Yeah, right.  How long have you lived in Brisbane?  This might happen in Sydney, but Brisbane is just different.

Problem is, generally speaking, when you approach a bus from behind, you have no real way of knowing how full the bus is, whether it's late or early and specifically for KGS, whether it's loading or waiting for time.  And I can assure you pax complain about lesser things than the scenario above!

In the PM peak I would be in favour of the 160 starting from the Cultural Centre.  Stops Buranda-Garden City-8MP should be served by a Captain Cook Bridge route(s) leaving from KGSBS though.

There is one already.  It's called the P88 

The other point I would make here is that there are 2 unused stops in KGSBS southbound.  I imagine sometimes these get used in the scenarios you refer to, but two from six seems overkill.

A, B & C at KGS can only take rigid buses.  And you're butt up against the guy in front.  Kind of like A1 & A2 in QSBS (both of which were used for through services for the first decade of operation).  That's why A,B & C southbound are used for Cultural Centre buses.  A nortbound is P88, 443 & 444 and C is 345 & 385 ().  I suspect A & B were placed so close together because there was the idea that they might have Bi-artic buses one day which would require that door spacing.  The problem there is by design unfortunately.  It's the same when you have an artic parked in A7 @ QSBS.  The bloke in A8 can't get out (or even get in for that matter) especially if he's in a 14.5m bus.  That's why they moved the 140 to stop A5.

[somebody]

In the PM peak I would be in favour of the 160 starting from the Cultural Centre.  Stops Buranda-Garden City-8MP should be served by a Captain Cook Bridge route(s) leaving from KGSBS though.

There is one already.  It's called the P88 

Indeed, but I'd question having all of these services extend to 8mp.

[Andrew]

Route 200 - CUT!!

What is so special about Deshon Street? It's a local road and not a very lengthy one either. It goes through an industrial area.
Any 'special bits' that 200 has can be tacked on to the end of 222. 203 can be routed up there. Deleting route 200 will make the network simpler as well.

If people get upset, or BT doesn't like it, move 204 and 203 into the QSBS to make up for the deletion of BUZ 200.

I can assure you that BT won't be the only ones getting upset if the 200 got axed.  It will be all the angry ratepayers and constituants who lost their "Premium-BUZ-no-timetable-needed-7-days-a-week-with-Nightlink-icing" service.  And they will smash whoever did it at the ballot box if they don't get a viable, comparable alternative.  Need I remind you that Rachel Nolan lost her seat in Ipswich weekend gone by?

You can't just say "Cut this, cut that, re-route the others" whenever you feel like it.  It doesn't work that way.  You have to build a business case.  Deshon St and its stops could be cut out for such reasons as low or no patronage numbers, for example.  The 203 was routed via O'Keefe St to give access to the PA Hospital.  Now IF (and I stress IF) the patronage numbers to and from the PA were low, it might be viable to replace the 200 along Deshon St with a re-routed 203 but you would then create the new problem of bypassing Stones Corner.

I think half the services that the 200 does (2 buses per hour) should be shifted over to the 222. This would make the 222 run every 10 minutes all day, which is plenty of frequency.
The other 2 trips release $$$ which can be re-allocated towards BUZ 235 and BUZ 230 Bulimba to complete the Core Frequent Network (CFN). This will cause a DOUBLING of patronage on those lines. When you cut waste, you create $$$ to spend on more useful services that people want and need.

Basically you're suggesting we rob Peter to pay Paul.  The argument really should be for more funding as a whole than stealing it from other BUZ services that already have a good passenger base.  To be honest, I think two BUZ routes into Balmoral/Bulimba at this stage is overkill.  What could be achieved is BUZzing one route and then creating complimentary routes on the other corridor to make a BUZ like frequency to the gabba (eg. 230BUZ and a 235/239 to UQ Lakes). 

[somebody]

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

Problem is, generally speaking, when you approach a bus from behind, you have no real way of knowing how full the bus is, whether it's late or early and specifically for KGS, whether it's loading or waiting for time.  And I can assure you pax complain about lesser things than the scenario above!

Which wouldn't matter if the drivers actions were supported by management.  Not saying that they should be in the proposed scenario.

Note: 203 is hourly with poor operating hours.

Re: Deshon St.  I really can't see that the catchment justifies a specialised routing.  Much bigger fish to fry in Brisbane than the users of this particular stop, I don't doubt.

[Gazza]

Andrew, with the 160, why not then let it have more of a point of difference to the 111. In the past I've suggested connecting the 161 to the end of the 160.

[#Metro]

Problem is, generally speaking, when you approach a bus from behind, you have no real way of knowing how full the bus is, whether it's late or early and specifically for KGS, whether it's loading or waiting for time.  And I can assure you pax complain about lesser things than the scenario above!

Disagree. There is no need to know any of this information. And the bus doesn't even need to be on time at this frequency. Shut the doors and let the next bus in regardless of the situation.

Basically you're suggesting we rob Peter to pay Paul.  The argument really should be for more funding as a whole than stealing it from other BUZ services that already have a good passenger base.  To be honest, I think two BUZ routes into Balmoral/Bulimba at this stage is overkill.  What could be achieved is BUZzing one route and then creating complimentary routes on the other corridor to make a BUZ like frequency to the gabba (eg. 230BUZ and a 235/239 to UQ Lakes).

I totally disagree with this argument. Bus routes are not some kind of sacred memorabilia that must be untouchable forever more. That's why most of the bus services (and there are around 220) are legacy routes. That's why there is so much waste - there is no need to flush $3-6 million dollars per year down the loo just for someone in Deshon Street. Money is valuable! And there are heaps of places screaming for decent services - why protect waste!! That's why the network is so terrible. If you are against cuts you are also against decent frequency and decent service.

CUT!!

[#Metro]

I can assure you that BT won't be the only ones getting upset if the 200 got axed.  It will be all the angry ratepayers and constituants who lost their "Premium-BUZ-no-timetable-needed-7-days-a-week-with-Nightlink-icing" service.  And they will smash whoever did it at the ballot box if they don't get a viable, comparable alternative.  Need I remind you that Rachel Nolan lost her seat in Ipswich weekend gone by?

Your argument is very poorly placed on the spectrum of authorities. You are basically arguing that we should not change services because people's feelings might be hurt or be offended. That is a very poor way of planning an network. Services should go where they are required, not where they are nostalgic. There are better uses for the millions of dollars poured into BUZ 200, there are decent geometric reasons as to why it should be cut (parallell routes compete), sending 2 services to form a 10 minute line of 222 BUZ services is more than enough frequency, and we can finally benefit bulimba with a BUZ.

You can't just say "Cut this, cut that, re-route the others" whenever you feel like it.  It doesn't work that way.  You have to build a business case.  Deshon St and its stops could be cut out for such reasons as low or no patronage numbers, for example.  The 203 was routed via O'Keefe St to give access to the PA Hospital.  Now IF (and I stress IF) the patronage numbers to and from the PA were low, it might be viable to replace the 200 along Deshon St with a re-routed 203 but you would then create the new problem of bypassing Stones Corner.

203 should be removed. There are FOUR stations on O'Keefe Street. FOUR! Total overkill for the area - PA Hospital Busway, Buranda Busway, Buranda Rail station, Stones Corner Busway Station, the 174/175/204 bus stops on Logan Road PLUS BUZ 100.

People for the PA Hospital can catch BUZ 100 Inala or 109 UQ Lakes. 203 is therefore redundant and a legacy route. CUT!!

[Gazza]

I can assure you that BT won't be the only ones getting upset if the 200 got axed.

Dumb question, why isn't the 200 using the Busway to begin with. Then the 222 would never have been needed.

Carindale Heights residents deserve the time savings of the new Eastern busway.

It will be all the angry ratepayers and constituants who lost their "Premium-BUZ-no-timetable-needed-7-days-a-week-with-Nightlink-icing" service.  And they will smash whoever did it at the ballot box if they don't get a viable, comparable alternative

And thats the problem! Route design shouldn't be subject to that sort of political whim.
Translink should handle all the planning and running costs...BT should just stick to driving and maintaining the buses.

[#Metro]

Dumb question, why isn't the 200 using the Busway to begin with. Then the 222 would never have been needed.

You know, I agree. They could have re-routed the 200. But BT seems to have a "don't cut anything" philosophy and they wanted a flagship route. Look at how many legacy routes there are - out of 220 bus routes only 20 or so are BUZ - that's only 9% of the entire network. The rest is welfare or coverage routes. It makes you want to cry that so much money is spent on this, and we get soooooooo little for it.

[somebody]

Dumb question, why isn't the 200 using the Busway to begin with. Then the 222 would never have been needed.

That's exactly right.

[achiruel]

Translink should handle all the planning and running costs...BT should just stick to driving and maintaining the buses.

The problem is that BCC contribute a fairly hefty sum of money towards the running of BT.  Somewhere over $400 mil p.a. IIRC.  Because of this, they get a greater say than say Logan City, Ipswich, Moreton, Redlands.

[somebody]

Translink should handle all the planning and running costs...BT should just stick to driving and maintaining the buses.

The problem is that BCC contribute a fairly hefty sum of money towards the running of BT.  Somewhere over $400 mil p.a. IIRC.  Because of this, they get a greater say than say Logan City, Ipswich, Moreton, Redlands.

It's nowhere near that much.  $65.5m in 2009/10.  Link: http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/mms/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=75109

[SurfRail]

Translink should handle all the planning and running costs...BT should just stick to driving and maintaining the buses.

The problem is that BCC contribute a fairly hefty sum of money towards the running of BT.  Somewhere over $400 mil p.a. IIRC.  Because of this, they get a greater say than say Logan City, Ipswich, Moreton, Redlands.

TransLink's entire budget is $1.4bn, of which subsidy makes up around $1.1bn.  QR alone is around $750m to fund, so I sincerely doubt that BCC is paying anywhere near as much as $400m.  They aren't paying for the buses they are trumpeting around as "theirs" either.

[achiruel]

It's nowhere near that much.  $65.5m in 2009/10.  Link: http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/mms/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=75109

It seems I've been misled by a poster on another forum who claimed BCC contributions of $465 mil.  Obviously without any source. 

[Andrew]

Problem is, generally speaking, when you approach a bus from behind, you have no real way of knowing how full the bus is, whether it's late or early and specifically for KGS, whether it's loading or waiting for time.  And I can assure you pax complain about lesser things than the scenario above!

Disagree. There is no need to know any of this information. And the bus doesn't even need to be on time at this frequency. Shut the doors and let the next bus in regardless of the situation.

Fair enough but your arse isn't on the line when you get the complaint.

I totally disagree with this argument. Bus routes are not some kind of sacred memorabilia that must be untouchable forever more. That's why most of the bus services (and there are around 220) are legacy routes.

The statement that "most of the bus services are legacy routes" is completely erroneous.  I agree some routes are and some areas could definitely do with a thorough review.  But I don't think that number is a vast majority and definitely not most of the 220 odd. 

That's why there is so much waste - there is no need to flush $3-6 million dollars per year down the loo just for someone in Deshon Street. Money is valuable! And there are heaps of places screaming for decent services - why protect waste!!

How is not cutting the 200BUZ supporting waste?  I've already stated I'm not against route review.  I know money is valuable.  Believe me, when you actually work in the industry and have some knowledge of the ACTUAL cost of running these services, you'll appreciate that statement. 

That's why the network is so terrible. If you are against cuts you are also against decent frequency and decent service.
CUT!!

The thing I can't understand is why you want to axe an already successful route, a BUZ route at that.  Have you considered that the Eastern Busway still has stages to be built and that by having multiple routes, you have more options to increase capacity where it's needed?  I agree with the argument that parts of the network need review.  I'm not against cuts in the right places.  And I am most definitely for decent frequency and services.  But doing a frontal lobotomy to fix a minor headache is just simply madness.

[achiruel]

I can't help but wonder if the legacy 200 route is somehow partly my fault.  I wrote to TransLink a few years ago suggesting a stop along Deshon St as it would serve the local industrial area around Deshon St/Turbo Dr. 

Now it seems they're stuck with the idea.  Of course at the time I wasn't aware of the forthcoming Eastern Busway and the issues that having a stop on Deshon St would cause!

[Andrew]

Your argument is very poorly placed on the spectrum of authorities. You are basically arguing that we should not change services because people's feelings might be hurt or be offended. That is a very poor way of planning an network. Services should go where they are required, not where they are nostalgic.

Well actually no that was not what I was saying if you read closely.  What I was arguing is that removing the 200 (a well patronised service) without providing a comparable replacement is a bad move.  You're statement above is purely based on the premise that the 200 is not required and is nostalgic route.  Your suggestion of reverting the 200 back to a 30 min service is a step backwards.

There are better uses for the millions of dollars poured into BUZ 200, there are decent geometric reasons as to why it should be cut (parallel routes compete), sending 2 services to form a 10 minute line of 222 BUZ services is more than enough frequency, and we can finally benefit bulimba with a BUZ.

Allow me to analyse your suggested change working on an off-peak schedule.  You are suggesting halving the 200 frequency to 30 mins and increasing the 222 frequency to 10 mins and saving money to run a Bulimba BUZ.

The 222 currently requires 5 buses with a cycle length of 75 mins.  Increasing to a 10 min frequency will reduce the cycle length to 70 mins and require 7 buses (an increase of 2 buses).  The 200 currently requires 6 buses with a cycle length of 90 mins.  Decreasing to a 30 min frequency will reduce the demand to 3 buses.

The 230 currently requires 4 buses with a cycle length of 120 mins.  Increasing it to a BUZ will reduce the cycle length to 105 mins and require 7 buses (an increase of 2 buses)bu

Your proposal, while well intentioned, actually will only save you one bus to put towards your Bulimba BUZ, which is not the three buses required.  You're going to require a much more substantial funding increase for a BUZ route.  Why not keep the 200 a BUZ (perhaps reviewing the routing) and fight for funding for an extra bus overall.

203 should be removed. There are FOUR stations on O'Keefe Street. FOUR! Total overkill for the area - PA Hospital Busway, Buranda Busway, Buranda Rail station, Stones Corner Busway Station, the 174/175/204 bus stops on Logan Road PLUS BUZ 100.
People for the PA Hospital can catch BUZ 100 Inala or 109 UQ Lakes. 203 is therefore redundant and a legacy route. CUT!!

On the face of it, that is a valid argument.  It would largely depending on the patronage levels of the 203 and where the journeys take place along the route.

[Gazza]

To clarify, you wouldn't revert the 200 back to half hourly, what I think he meant was  shorten the route to Carindale, still at 4 bph, and then people change to a 222.

[SurfRail]

I agree with some of the sentiments above about merging the 200 and 222.  The only point of distinction is:

- 200 does not stop at Kismet St (is there actually some operational reason for this?)
- 200 serves Deshon St.

I will put my hand up and say that Deshon St does not need a BUZ, so this merge could happen fairly safely.

I think the notion of keeping the 222 routing is supported - the issue is more everything else.

[#Metro]

The statement that "most of the bus services are legacy routes" is completely erroneous.  I agree
some routes are and some areas could definitely do with a thorough review.  But I don't think that
number is a vast majority and definitely not most of the 220 odd.

No it is not erroneous. Only 9% of the BT bus network is BUZ standard geared towards patronage. The rest - legacy or peak hour only.
If you have contradictory evidence, present it.

How is not cutting the 200BUZ
supporting waste?  I've already stated I'm not against route review.  I know money is valuable.
Believe me, when you actually work in the industry and have some knowledge of the ACTUAL cost of
running these services, you'll appreciate that statement.

Opportunity cost. A dollar spent on BUZ 200 is a dollar NOT spent elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

The thing I can't understand is why you
want to axe an already successful route, a BUZ route at that.  Have you considered that the Eastern
Busway still has stages to be built and that by having multiple routes, you have more options to
increase capacity where it's needed?  I agree with the argument that parts of the network need
review.  I'm not against cuts in the right places.  And I am most definitely for decent frequency
and services.  But doing a frontal lobotomy to fix a minor headache is just simply madness.

You say you aren't against cuts yet you make arguments against cuts.
BUZ 200 is not sufficiently different from BUZ 222, apart from Deshon Street, Wooloongabba and the bit up to Carindale Heights.
Geometry - parallel routes compete for each other. If BUZ 200 was abolished pax would simply move to 222. There is no need for two different BUZ services to Carindale that are basically the same.

Well
actually no that was not what I was saying if you read closely.  What I was arguing is that removing
the 200 (a well patronised service) without providing a comparable replacement is a bad move.
You're statement above is purely based on the premise that the 200 is not required and is nostalgic
route.  Your suggestion of reverting the 200 back to a 30 min service is a step backwards. Allow me
to analyse your suggested change working on an off-peak schedule.  You are suggesting halving the
200 frequency to 30 mins and increasing the 222 frequency to 10 mins and saving money to run a
Bulimba BUZ.

CUT the 222, use the cash to boost 230/235 and 222 to compensate. Re-route 203 up Deshon street.
It's not hard.

Your proposal, while well intentioned, actually will only save you one bus to put towards your
Bulimba BUZ, which is not the three buses required.  You're going to require a much more substantial
funding increase for a BUZ route.  Why not keep the 200 a BUZ (perhaps reviewing the routing) and
fight for funding for an extra bus overall.

Because it is waste and waste must be cut.

[somebody]

The thing I can't understand is why you
want to axe an already successful route, a BUZ route at that.  Have you considered that the Eastern
Busway still has stages to be built and that by having multiple routes, you have more options to
increase capacity where it's needed?  I agree with the argument that parts of the network need
review.  I'm not against cuts in the right places.  And I am most definitely for decent frequency
and services.  But doing a frontal lobotomy to fix a minor headache is just simply madness.

You say you aren't against cuts yet you make arguments against cuts.
BUZ 200 is not sufficiently different from BUZ 222, apart from Deshon Street, Wooloongabba and the bit up to Carindale Heights.
Geometry - parallel routes compete for each other. If BUZ 200 was abolished pax would simply move to 222. There is no need for two different BUZ services to Carindale that are basically the same.

Must side with Andrew on this one.  There's no reason to cut the 200 and I see little reason to renumber it 222 either.  Just send it via the Eastern Busway, and do the same with the 204 while having the latter use QSBS.

Then remove the 222.

There is an argument that the 200+204 should be put into KGSBS instead and that is so that the 207 & 201 can be put in there in the PM peak without displacing other routes.