POLL: Truncate the 66?

[Gazza]

To amplify this, TL/BT/Gazza do not consider the overall network, but only focus creating a bunch of lines.

Why are you singling me out? look at all the other people who voted against truncating the 66.

What's this about creating 'a bunch of lines'? I've drawn overall network plans and posted them, so I'm guessing you're trolling  :conf

I've got no issue with the 66 because it's extra capacity on the core section where all the tall buildings, hospitals, higher education facilities etc are.
Once you get past Gabba, or past RBWH it's back to suburbs of Queenslander houses, so no need to continue the route past these points.

All we've got to go on are your casual observations of the 66, which are naturally going to be biased to justify getting rid of it.

[somebody]

How about we scrap the 66, upgrade the frequency of the 393 and send it to Roma St/KGSBS? Win win

South of the Cultural Centre, the 66 has no real reason to exist. There are far more bus routes to choose from and more BUZ services- 100, 111, 120, 130, 140, 150, 180 so frequency really isn't an issue. It's just the damn bus jams that occur. Buses to Woolloongabba are less frequent but you still have BUZes 100 and 200 and also the 230/235, 17/5, 12/5, 110, 184/5 etc...

On the northside, a 66 is needed because frequency is shitter- main BUZes being 330 and 333 (340 skips cultural centre so not useful for someone there). Plus you have the horrid overcrowding from QUT Kelvin Grove.

That's about right, but I wouldn't go into KGSBS.  Extending the 393 to W'Gabba via the Turbot St/Roma St portal & CC Bridge would provide the Roma St/W'Gabba connection of the 340/66 and faster.

Other issue is that finding the next W'Gabba bus from the city or even Cultural Centre isn't easy unless you are a bus nerd or even if!
W'Gabba bound routes at present:
QSBS A1: 100
QSBS A2: 214, 215, 220
QSBS A3: 200
QSBS A7: 110, 115
KGSBS 340 & 66
Ann St: 184/185/210/212
Adelaide St stop 39 (+others): 174, 175, 203?, 204, 230, 235, 117, 124, 125
Alice St: 172, 113 perhaps others

How is the average person supposed to negotiate all of that?  I think they should make it all Adelaide St for the routes which should continue to run via W'Gabba.

[Mr X]

+1
Common city stop locations is something Brisbane SUCKS at.
Try telling someone how to get to Indooroopilly. KGSBS with the 88/444? Or Ann St? Too many different outbound stop locations.

[somebody]

+1
Common city stop locations is something Brisbane SUCKS at.
Try telling someone how to get to Indooroopilly. KGSBS with the 88/444? Or Ann St? Too many different outbound stop locations.

Indro is the worst as it is the only corridor which has to endure the 444 running through the Cultural Centre in the reverse direction to the other routes.

[achiruel]

Other issue is that finding the next W'Gabba bus from the city or even Cultural Centre isn't easy unless you are a bus nerd or even if!
W'Gabba bound routes at present:
QSBS A1: 100
QSBS A2: 214, 215, 220
QSBS A3: 200
QSBS A7: 110, 115
KGSBS 340 & 66
Ann St: 184/185/210/212
Adelaide St stop 39 (+others): 174, 175, 203?, 204, 230, 235, 117, 124, 125
Alice St: 172, 113 perhaps others

How is the average person supposed to negotiate all of that?  I think they should make it all Adelaide St for the routes which should continue to run via W'Gabba.

It's hardly possible to have every bus that goes to the Gabba leave from the same stop.  As 100 & 200 are the most frequent, going to A1/A2/A3 should be easy enough for most people (given that the 214/215/220 stop at 'Gabba as well, although rather infrequently at night).

Incidentally, I wonder if it would be possible to have the 110/115 share A1 with 100, as they share the same corridor City-Clifton Hill and both terminate at Inala Plaza.  100 ex City frequency doesn't seem to exceed 10 minutes, so I think it should be feasible.

[somebody]

Other issue is that finding the next W'Gabba bus from the city or even Cultural Centre isn't easy unless you are a bus nerd or even if!
W'Gabba bound routes at present:
QSBS A1: 100
QSBS A2: 214, 215, 220
QSBS A3: 200
QSBS A7: 110, 115
KGSBS 340 & 66
Ann St: 184/185/210/212
Adelaide St stop 39 (+others): 174, 175, 203?, 204, 230, 235, 117, 124, 125
Alice St: 172, 113 perhaps others

How is the average person supposed to negotiate all of that?  I think they should make it all Adelaide St for the routes which should continue to run via W'Gabba.

It's hardly possible to have every bus that goes to the Gabba leave from the same stop.  As 100 & 200 are the most frequent, going to A1/A2/A3 should be easy enough for most people (given that the 214/215/220 stop at 'Gabba as well, although rather infrequently at night).

Incidentally, I wonder if it would be possible to have the 110/115 share A1 with 100, as they share the same corridor City-Clifton Hill and both terminate at Inala Plaza.  100 ex City frequency doesn't seem to exceed 10 minutes, so I think it should be feasible.

I don't think I said the same stop, but adjacent stops could be more achievable. 

I actually think that the 100 and 200 should be taken out of W'Gabba, in the former case I can live with it remaining on the inbound as that doesn't require using Jurgens St.  200 to utilise the Eastern Busway.

The 110/115 used to come from A1 but the 100 runs every 5 minutes in one of the peaks so that is why they were separated away.

[techblitz]

I actually think that the 100 and 200 should be taken out of W'Gabba, in the former case I can live with it remaining on the inbound as that doesn't require using Jurgens St.  200 to utilise the Eastern Busway.

please elaborate on the 200 a bit further......do you wish it to stop at buranda?


doesnt sending the 200 via buranda conflict with your wish to decrease congestion at that station?

[Mr X]

Dump the 222 and send the 200 via the Eastern Busway.

No net increase in buses to Buranda and people in Carindale Heights can actually use their busway. I doubt anyone at that Kingfisher Creek stop on the 200 would care.

[somebody]

I actually think that the 100 and 200 should be taken out of W'Gabba, in the former case I can live with it remaining on the inbound as that doesn't require using Jurgens St.  200 to utilise the Eastern Busway.

please elaborate on the 200 a bit further......do you wish it to stop at buranda?


doesnt sending the 200 via buranda conflict with your wish to decrease congestion at that station?

Fair point, but it is a price worth paying.

[achiruel]

I'm all for dumping the 222 and sending 200 via EB.

Not sure about the asymmetric routing for 100 though.

What I want to know is why can't Ipswich Rd buses turn right out of 'Gabba.  If it's simply a traffic signal issue surely that wouldn't be hard to fix?

Of course if you remove both 100 and 200 from 'Gabba, that leaves 'Gabba without a BUZ route.  Which may not seem a problem in the daytime when there are lots of buses but from experience at night (especially Sunday) before there was a 200 BUZ, you could be waiting ages for a bus to/from Gabba.

[Mr X]

It's a traffic light timing issue. As it is buses can enter and exit the Gabba while traffic can continue along Stanley St, however if we had buses turning right it would hold up the *entire* intersection. Also, we'd have the issue similar to the Melbourne St portal, with buses turning right having a red, stopping buses going straight when they have a green light.

[somebody]

It's a traffic light timing issue. As it is buses can enter and exit the Gabba while traffic can continue along Stanley St, however if we had buses turning right it would hold up the *entire* intersection. Also, we'd have the issue similar to the Melbourne St portal, with buses turning right having a red, stopping buses going straight when they have a green light.

I hadn't thought of the second part, the first part was enough to convince me.

Besides, there is a perfectly usable bypass of Jurgens St via the Boggo Rd busway.

[Golliwog]

As an aside, I caught a 66 from South Bank to KGS Monday afternoon at around 4.50-5pm. When I got on there was around 13 pax on the bus, including those who got on at SB, and this rose to ~20 at the CC. I specifically waited for a 66 for about 5 minutes or a bit more and noted two 109's, a 200, a 115, 117, 140, 150, 111, 100, 175, and that's just the ones I can remember seeing off the top of my head. Pretty sure there was a 130 and 150 in there as well.

I think it's a clarity thing (although that said, one of the girls getting on at SB did ask the driver if route 66 went to the city...) having the one route that you know goes to the main stops, but also having some decent inner city trip generators all on the one route helps make it attractive.

I understand your point Simon that these people could more than likely fit onto the other existing services, but it instantly becomes less attractive for people on the inner southern busway trying to get to/from the inner northern busway section. They now need to know roughly a dozen different routes that will work for each leg, plus you've just made CC worse by increasing the dwell times for buses there as you would be increasing the number of interchanges occuring at that stop.

[somebody]

It would be nice if we could improve the destos.  You need to actually know that Ipswich Rd & Logan Rd mean via W'Gabba and even if you know that you don't pick up the 184 and 185.  If you target routes starting with 2, you need to know that 202, 222 and 250 are exceptions.

66 doesn't run on weekends or evenings so I think that reduces your point about having a route which they know goes to W'Gabba.

I'd agree about the increase to CC congestion, but that's a pretty minor point IMO.  13 people on a 66 in your example isn't a noticeable change at CC.

[Golliwog]

I'd agree about the increase to CC congestion, but that's a pretty minor point IMO.  13 people on a 66 in your example isn't a noticeable change at CC.

This was just one case, but I would point out that depending on when those 13 people turned up to their respective busway stations that could be an extra 26 buses actually stopping/stopping for longer at CC. Most buses do already stop so it'd really just extend how long they stop by a few seconds, but having that happen to a number of buses could cause even more issues for somewhere as congested as CC.

[somebody]

Non-stopping the Cultural Centre is so rare as to not even be worth talking about.