POLL: RBH-Valley-Story Bridge-PAH

[somebody]

I am assuming that the Valley-PAH bit would be carved off the 475/6 if something proper was done.  Similarly 370/375 may be able to use the busway instead of going via Fortitude Valley.

[somebody]

Hmm.  A number see the need to go to UQ.  If you want to do that, then why not use the busway?  From Fortitude Valley you can use the train to Park Rd.  It would require a right turn out of Ipswich Rd (southbound) into the bus lower platform, which is currently not allowed and there is no room for a right turn lane without moving something.

[Mr X]

Can't the bus just serve the upper platform and access the busway via the O'Keefe St portal?

Alternatively it could terminate at the Gabba and pax could use the 29.

[Otto]

Can't the bus just serve the upper platform and access the busway via the O'Keefe St portal?

Yes, it could towards UQ, but would have to use the lower platform on the return trip. ( no right turn busway to O'Keefe St )

[Golliwog]

I went for the UQ terminus mostly because it's a bit trip attractor in the area and could see more people being drawn to the route if it went all the way rather than pushing an interchange. I don't see there being much demand for Emperor or Tottenham Streets, though does let them use the Express stop.

I guess it depends how important the stop location is. If you're going to the busway, then I'd go all the way to UQ. Otherwise pick one of those 2 streets.

If you're going to UQ though, I feel you'd basically be competing with the 29 at The Gabba and surrounds, so you'd potentially look at doing something together there. If the 29 wasn't generally operated as a loop I'd suggest running it so that you had 29 (same as current) and 29A extended across to RBH? Have every 3rd 29 become a 29A?

[aldonius]

Have every 3rd 29 become a 29A?

Coming Soon: route 27! UQ-PA-RBH via Clem7! (carrying more air than the 88).

[somebody]

Can't the bus just serve the upper platform and access the busway via the O'Keefe St portal?

I guess so, I didn't think about that.  It would also allow it to serve the stop on O'Keefe St.  No issue with not being able to duplicate this route in the other direction - stopping on the lower platform is fine.

I went for the UQ terminus mostly because it's a bit trip attractor in the area and could see more people being drawn to the route if it went all the way rather than pushing an interchange. I don't see there being much demand for Emperor or Tottenham Streets, though does let them use the Express stop.

Only Emperor St allows them to do that, which is its purpose.

-
If such a service does indeed go through to UQ. it should replace the 29 except in the PM peak, and have the passengers be asked to wait on Main St near the stadium.

[Golliwog]

Just out of curiousity, why not the PM peak?

And how much difference is there in walking distances to the majoirty of the hospital from the express/current/busway stops?

I'm leaning more to making it a UQ route, though this could make the 340 Gabba terminus pointless if they can interchange at RBH.

[somebody]

Just out of curiousity, why not the PM peak?

29 justifies its existence in the PM peak, mostly with people interchanging on to rail.  In the AM peak it doesn't really matter as people can just get on whatever bus comes through.

[SurfRail]

Yes, it could towards UQ, but would have to use the lower platform on the return trip. ( no right turn busway to O'Keefe St )

Am I missing something here?

The only thing stopping the 77 going to UQ and using both platforms at the PAH is that it turns towards Buranda at the O'Keefe St entrance.  Why would this route not be able to use both upper platforms at the PAH?  (If need be, there seems to be enough room to add a turning lane.)

[somebody]

Yes, it could towards UQ, but would have to use the lower platform on the return trip. ( no right turn busway to O'Keefe St )

Am I missing something here?

The only thing stopping the 77 going to UQ and using both platforms at the PAH is that it turns towards Buranda at the O'Keefe St entrance.  Why would this route not be able to use both upper platforms at the PAH?  (If need be, there seems to be enough room to add a turning lane.)

True, but the only reason to serve the upper platform is to serve the stop westbound on O'Keefe St.  I think it would take too long for the benefit.  Lower platform is superior for pedestrian arrangements anyway.  No one saw much problem with the existing arrangements for connection between busway services and Ipswich Rd services in a poll a little while ago.

[Golliwog]

I'd be more supportive of it serving the top platform UQ bound and the lower platform when it's going away from UQ. Mostly because going to UQ you want all the routes on the one platform to spread the load, but going the other way that doesn't matter for a route like this that it completely different in terms of catchment from all the others.

[somebody]

I'd be more supportive of it serving the top platform UQ bound and the lower platform when it's going away from UQ. Mostly because going to UQ you want all the routes on the one platform to spread the load, but going the other way that doesn't matter for a route like this that it completely different in terms of catchment from all the others.

Good to see that you see this point, which is normally missed in QLD.

[Jonas Jade]

I support the UQ option (as I do with the "79") to encourage UQ bound transfers off northern routes before they hit the busway.

It would be more effective with a route 79 (and I believe with increased frequency) would get more patronage than the 77 at present, but that conversation has been convered in other threads.

This would be amalgamated with the 29, or the 29 deleted.

And aldonis, I don't think your "27" would actually carry air, as there would be time savings involved for most passengers with good enough frequency.

[somebody]

If such a route did happen, I'm entirely uncomfortable with the arrangements for interchange with Ipswich Rd express services (100/110/115).  All stop routes are fine.  Inbound it isn't really that much of a problem.  Walking from the inbound PAH express stop isn't the end of the world, but it's a bit further to the outbound stop, and needing to cross Ipswich Rd is pretty annoying.  If you are heading north from the 100 on the proposed route, changing at W'Gabba is easy enough.  I think the answer is to run the outbound express routes via the 2nd O'Keefe St busway portal and having an express stop on O'Keefe St.  You still need to cross O'Keefe St to effect the transfer, but that's far less busy than Ipswich Rd.  I've proposed this a couple of times before, but perhaps this would be enough to get it across the line.

It's really annoying having to wait for the several lights going via Jurgens St when it is clear they could be bypassed, Translink just don't want to.

As for the need to duplicate the route on the inbound, I'm not sure that such a need exists.  The 540 can manage the lane change from the PAH express stop to turn right into O'Keefe St though.  Only reason the 100 shouldn't be able to is that the roads might be busier at those times.