POLL: Northern Busway services after Windsor-Kedron opening

[somebody]

340, not 330.

The major advantage of the 333 extension via Hamilton & Webster Rds is that it would allow the 340 to be straightened to Gympie Rd, and the 335 wouldn't need to be deviated to serve Webster/Hamilton.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The current 333 stops would be merged into the 111 route which would stop at Chermside interchange and continue to Aspley interchange via Gympie Road (Easy not to confuse it if Translink/BT do a similar approach to what they did to the CityGliders eg painted buses, marked bus stops, longer buses, buslanes, prepaid only for faster boarding (grace period for the first month still accepting money/selling prepaid gocards, another grace period for another month but only selling prepaid gocards before going prepaid boarding fulltime) and just heavily promoting it has one of Translinks core PT routes for the Southside and Northside with a better frequency, better span of hours (10 mins during the day 7 days a week, every 30 mins between 12am-6am Friday-Monday), putting on timetables connect to the NorthSouthGlider etc). Capacity along the busway in the inner city can be freed up as more routes would be terminating at interchanges/busway stations and passengers boarding the 111/NorthSouthGlider.

The 333 would then start from the Aspley interchange running to Geebung railway station and Chermside interchange before running express to RBWH and terminating at the QSBS (QSBS should only be reserved for Buz services. Other routes including rockets should use street stops or terminate at bus stations).

Anyone onboard the 330/340 can then board the 333 to the city or board the NorthSouthGlider to the city or a key stop inbetween.

[somebody]

I think there needs to be a more network wide effort to get the remaining paper ticket users on to go card.

Forgot to mention that straightening the 340 to use Gympie Rd makes "The Gardens"/"Chermside Gardens" a more reasonable stop to wait at heading inbound.  BUZ 330 will probably get some people going there, but extra service would help.

I don't have any further comment re: 111+333.

[SurfRail]

I don't get this 111 + 333 thing.  There isn't enough busway to make it reliable enough on the northside.  I have no interest in BT replicating the silliness that goes on in Adelaide with throughrouted buses from the far north to the far south - even O-Bahn services throughrouted to the west were unreliable.

[achiruel]

It's a pity some way couldn't be found to have buses enter Chermside interchange directly from Gympie rd i/b.  This way, perhaps the 330/340 could serve the interchange more easily.  Of course Westfield would lose some of their newly found carpark revenue, so it will probably never happen.

[BrizCommuter]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/will-inner-northern-busway-overcrowding.html
The new 66,330,333,340 timetable continues to ignore counter-peak Inner Northern Busway overcrowding.

[beauyboy]

I have to say I personally oppose the cut of the 393. It was branded as the BUZ link service now it links very little. It should not of been cut it should of been extended through to Roma Street.  Very few people were using the service and now that it has been cut and down graded even less people will use it. 

Honestly the majority of people using the 66 are just between RBWH/QUT and Roma Street but that service run s all the way through to Woollangabba why should what is potentially the most useful part of the 393 not be reinstated

Honestly
Donald

[somebody]

I have to say I personally oppose the cut of the 393. It was branded as the BUZ link service now it links very little. It should not of been cut it should of been extended through to Roma Street.  Very few people were using the service and now that it has been cut and down graded even less people will use it. 

Honestly the majority of people using the 66 are just between RBWH/QUT and Roma Street but that service run s all the way through to Woollangabba why should what is potentially the most useful part of the 393 not be reinstated

Honestly
Donald

I stand with you here.

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/will-inner-northern-busway-overcrowding.html
The new 66,330,333,340 timetable continues to ignore counter-peak Inner Northern Busway overcrowding.

The 393 will be cut back from Normanby to Roma Street.

Oops!

Sadly, it appears that TransLink have yet again ignored the overcrowding issues on the Inner Northern Busway.

Is that really true?  14% and 9% increases aren't exactly nothing.

Thanks for the stats, BTW.

[#Metro]

I have to say I personally oppose the cut of the 393. It was branded as the BUZ link service now it links very little. It should not of been cut it should of been extended through to Roma Street.  Very few people were using the service and now that it has been cut and down graded even less people will use it.

It does do very little now, no weekend services, but no-one was catching it, even in the days that it used to depart from in the city.

The hospital is a major trip generator, and I think a 393 as a cross-town, from Ashgrove or Newmarket to Tenneriffe via RBWH (use Gilchrist Ave and Herston Roads) would be better. Nurses etc will tend to live near the hospital.

[somebody]

no-one was catching it, even in the days that it used to depart from in the city.

That contradicts most other reports.

[BrizCommuter]

It does do very little now, no weekend services, but no-one was catching it, even in the days that it used to depart from in the city.

The 393 was often full to capacity in the counter-peak direction when it ran to Roma Street. Many a time on the inbound journey it reached capacity at RCH Herston, and left behind passengers at QUT Kelvin Grove.

[SurfRail]

It's a pity some way couldn't be found to have buses enter Chermside interchange directly from Gympie rd i/b.  This way, perhaps the 330/340 could serve the interchange more easily.  Of course Westfield would lose some of their newly found carpark revenue, so it will probably never happen.

I would wager that a new Chermside station might appear before the rest of the busway north or south of Chermside - same too with Carindale although that has better capacity at the moment.  Current rough designs have it near/under the Hamilton Rd intersection, or on the western side of Gympie Road, presumably to coincide with redevelopment of the precinct and to accommodate the busway doglegging via the PCH.

[beauyboy]

The hospital is a major trip generator, and I think a 393 as a cross-town, from Ashgrove or Newmarket to Tenneriffe via RBWH (use Gilchrist Ave and Herston Roads) would be better. Nurses etc will tend to live near the hospital.

I disagree the times i used it before the INB opening it was being used by people and would of been used by more with the opening if it had of serviced Roma Street Busway Station but they cut it. If the 66 is carring people over such a short distance why would the 393 not also. Afterall is the 66 not a Monday to Friday daylight only route just like the 393.

Donald

[Golliwog]

It's a pity some way couldn't be found to have buses enter Chermside interchange directly from Gympie rd i/b.  This way, perhaps the 330/340 could serve the interchange more easily.  Of course Westfield would lose some of their newly found carpark revenue, so it will probably never happen.

I would wager that a new Chermside station might appear before the rest of the busway north or south of Chermside - same too with Carindale although that has better capacity at the moment.  Current rough designs have it near/under the Hamilton Rd intersection, or on the western side of Gympie Road, presumably to coincide with redevelopment of the precinct and to accommodate the busway doglegging via the PCH.

What I've heard is that they're looking at not having the dog leg, or at least not tunnelled. Too expensive.

[somebody]

The road layout does not permit a better one.  Can't exit the expressway and turn right onto William Street at Margaret or Elizabeth St, and even if you could you can't turn right into the bus station from there.

So the alternative is just do nothing?

No, the alternative is what I've banged on about before
- 340 into Cultural Centre
- 444 into QSBS B
- 88 to QUT KG via George St stops 108, 116 and Magistrates Lane stop 130.
- 300/301/306/322 to Parliament instead of the Cultural Centre.  If there is a need to connect Parliament and W'Gabba or W'Gabba and the CBD via the CCB, then extend there.

EDIT: And if you want to talk about insufficient capacity in the cultural centre, extending the 393 to Roma St and reducing the 66 will free up some capacity.
- And the 444 can access QSBS B via Skew St and Roma St Busway.

I thought you'd comment on this.  I think I've thought of everything here.

[Golliwog]

New Northern Busway Network Map: http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/maps/busway/120618-northern.pdf

[HappyTrainGuy]

Way too many routes going to the city. Also, does Translink have to pay tolls to access the airport link? If they do then bravo on the success of building a busway.

[WTN]

Way too many routes going to the city. Also, does Translink have to pay tolls to access the airport link? If they do then bravo on the success of building a busway.

And in terms of routing, that's like sending the 130/140/150 via the freeway while the 111/160 stay on the busway. Class C vs Class A ROW. Extra points if the the Airport Link buses get stuck in traffic.

I still don't get why they singled out the 340 to terminate at the Gabba via Captain Cook bridge. It's an inconsistency. As Simon pointed out, if Cultural Centre is at capacity, why not consider moving some routes to QSBS B?

[Mr X]

It doesn't help that an entire section of busway is missing AND no bus lanes will be provided as they said they would.

[BrizCommuter]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/translink-mislead-commuters-again.html
Is BrizCommuter being pedantic, or are TransLink misleading commuters yet again?

[somebody]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/translink-mislead-commuters-again.html
Is BrizCommuter being pedantic, or are TransLink misleading commuters yet again?

What would be a an acceptable amount of increased service?

[BrizCommuter]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/translink-mislead-commuters-again.html
Is BrizCommuter being pedantic, or are TransLink misleading commuters yet again?

What would be a an acceptable amount of increased service?

Probably about 20%, which would have been achieved by the 330, and 340 running 10 mins peak in both directions in the peak.

However, the blog post is not really about service provision, but more about TransLink's advertising being misleading - for example someone taking the 340 from Gabba to Chermside would be expecting a 10min am peak frequency based on the advert, but the reality is a 15min am peak frequency.

[Golliwog]

It doesn't help that an entire section of busway is missing AND no bus lanes will be provided as they said they would.

Are we sure no bus lanes are being installed?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Drove along parts of it the other week and it doesn't look like it. There were markings for the Inner City Bypass/Clem 7 tunnel enterance which starts back near the Newmarket road intersection as a single file before going double lanes which buses currently share. They might change it so one lane would be the entrance for the busway with the other lane leading onto the ICB but I don't see that happening. The only bus lanes are around the entry/exit points. The main entry point near Albion road should be interesting when it opens as some people were leaving space while others were pulling up blocking the crossing (they might put some more lines on the ground prior to it opening. I expect that to be a spot of bother for buses entering and exiting the busway. It's also going to be a bitch of a place for congestion too considering how short the spaces are now between traffic lights and now handling the busway traffic aswell (Should have built a bridge or extended the tunnel there IMHO). Peak hour traffic times for buses on the busway might end up being the same with the Albion road enterance soaking up the time and not to mention the busway entrance waiting bay only looks big enough to hold about 3 buses. Seems like a half assed soultion to me when a couple bus lanes and resumptions would have been cheaper. 330 should be fine though but if there's a delay relating to the tunnel expect a few spanners in the works. Only time will tell.

Edit: Fixed up spelling errors

[Golliwog]

I thought it was bus lanes the whole way between the two sections of seperated busway. I wouldn't have expected them to have put the bus lane markings in just yet seeing as it's (the busway, not Airport Link) not opened yet. Though they should be going in soon though I would think.

[SurfRail]

Is BrizCommuter being pedantic, or are TransLink misleading commuters yet again?

I would say yes and no respectively.  BUZ means 10 min in the peak flow direction (ie in this case, from Carseldine in the am peak).  The fact it happens to terminate at the Gabba does not mean every single bus reverses and runs back in service.  It wouldn't have even occurred to them this could be an issue, and I'm sure the vast majority of people would agree. 

Seriously though - why can't they just extend the 111 and 222 to QUT? 

Turnaround? Tick.

High capacity buses? Tick.

QUT passengers largely empty out by King George Square leaving the bus ready to pick up southbound passengers?  Tick.

Close to layover facilities? Tick.

No congestion to deal with at the terminus? Tick.

No substantial modifications needed to existing route?  Tick.

Delivers an extra 8 buses per hour in the off-peak at minimum every day of the year?  Tick.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Turnaround? Tick.

High capacity buses? Tick.

QUT passengers largely empty out by King George Square leaving the bus ready to pick up southbound passengers?  Tick.

Close to layover facilities? Tick.

No congestion to deal with at the terminus? Tick.

No substantial modifications needed to existing route?  Tick.

Delivers an extra 8 buses per hour in the off-peak at minimum every day of the year?  Tick.

Translink making PT more annoying: Tick

Translink making PT more expensive: Tick

Translink not doing it's job: Tick

Translink making everyone frustrated: Tick

[aldonius]

Golli - the alignment map on the TL page has bus lanes from Newmarket Rd intersection northbound to busway proper. So a small gap between the end of the dedicated busway (intersection shared with Federation/Gallway St) and the start of the bus lanes. Of course, whether the bus lanes will be there at all remains to be seen... I doubt they'll be put in in time for the big opening next week.
http://translink.com.au/resources/about-translink/what-we-do/infrastructure-projects/northern-busway/100217-alignment.jpg

[somebody]

Is BrizCommuter being pedantic, or are TransLink misleading commuters yet again?

I would say yes and no respectively.  BUZ means 10 min in the peak flow direction (ie in this case, from Carseldine in the am peak).  The fact it happens to terminate at the Gabba does not mean every single bus reverses and runs back in service.  It wouldn't have even occurred to them this could be an issue, and I'm sure the vast majority of people would agree. 

Seriously though - why can't they just extend the 111 and 222 to QUT? 

Turnaround? Tick.

High capacity buses? Tick.

QUT passengers largely empty out by King George Square leaving the bus ready to pick up southbound passengers?  Tick.

Close to layover facilities? Tick.

No congestion to deal with at the terminus? Tick.

No substantial modifications needed to existing route?  Tick.

Delivers an extra 8 buses per hour in the off-peak at minimum every day of the year?  Tick.

Not needed at 10pm on a Sunday, or any day for that matter.  It's not the ideal option.

[Mr X]

How about extend selected peak hour runs to QUT?

[SurfRail]

Not needed at 10pm on a Sunday, or any day for that matter.  It's not the ideal option.

Nor is any BUZ route I would wager.  We still run them without variation for system legibility and to improve public confidence in the network.

It's a few minutes extra per trip - in the scheme of things, not hugely significant to deliver.  The issue is people needing to get on a bus to go back to Roma Street, which to me means making a service originate at QUT.  The 111 and 222 are best placed to do that.

Not sure what the alternative is.

[somebody]

Alternatives?  I've banged on enough about them.

[SurfRail]

I still think 111 and 222 extension is the easiest way by far to solve this.

[Golliwog]

Not needed at 10pm on a Sunday, or any day for that matter.  It's not the ideal option.

Nor is any BUZ route I would wager.  We still run them without variation for system legibility and to improve public confidence in the network.

It's a few minutes extra per trip - in the scheme of things, not hugely significant to deliver.  The issue is people needing to get on a bus to go back to Roma Street, which to me means making a service originate at QUT.  The 111 and 222 are best placed to do that.

Not sure what the alternative is.

Can be something that could be a bit expensive to deliver though. I posted this previously in another thread but will post it here again:

On a route of 15 minute frequency, that runs 16 hours per day, adding just 100m of travel at the end of each trip will cost at least an extra $23,000 per annum.

That is quoted directly from a guest lecture we had last year about public transport planning, and that was from the section on buses.

[somebody]

Service planning in this town is so absurd, I expect it would be easy to carve out the entire BCC subsidy in waste while increasing patronage.

[#Metro]

Are we going to see a community open day like with all the other busways? With BBQ by the local rotary club/whatever and TransLink on hand to explain the changes and tour it. This cost millions to build, and we the public paid for it! Or Don't they want to showcase it because it is a LABOR piece of infrastructure?

[#Metro]

On a route of 15 minute frequency, that runs 16 hours per day, adding just 100m of travel at the end of each trip will cost at least an extra $23,000 per annum.

That is quoted directly from a guest lecture we had last year about public transport planning, and that was from the section on buses.

AND to think of all those BT routes that run ALL THE WAY TO THE CBD that don't need to - 172, 322, 306, the list goes on and on... WASTE!!

[Mr X]

Are we going to see a community open day like with all the other busways? With BBQ by the local rotary club/whatever and TransLink on hand to explain the changes and tour it. This cost millions to build, and we the public paid for it! Or Don't they want to showcase it because it is a LABOR piece of infrastructure?

I believe there is a community open day on the 16th of June.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Alternatives?  I've banged on enough about them.

BUZ ALL THE ROUTES!!!!!!!!

[Mr X]

I swear it was announced here or somewhere that there was going to be a BUZ from Aspley Hyperhole -> Chermside -> City. I guess it got canned?  :conf