Amalgamate 111 + 333 to create '123'

[#Metro]

Hello,

A proposal for your consideration. Amalgamation of the 111 8 Mile Plains + 333 Chermside services to create a 123 Busway service.

- Eliminates interchange in the CBD
- Frees up slots at Cultural Centre
- Eliminates 'overlap' between bus lines between Roma Street and Cultural Centre (saves money)

I've thought about this and the P88 seems to be fine doing busway + on road, and there are many buses on this corridor and the frequency is very high so even if there were slight delay, I think most would not notice because the next one is coming soon. Might also be a driving impetus to add bus lanes to the N Busway section where transit lanes are missing.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I've bitched about this for ages with a host of different ways like 111 extension to Aspley int, 111+333 merge, 111+333 merge to aspley int prepaid with a 330/340 termination at Chermside with a new route Chermside-Aspley via geebung and so on and so on but most people say its too long or it won't be reliable. Make it a pre paid route for starters, advertise and promote the hell out of it like CityGlider, cut routes at interchanges/bus stations and bus lanes during peak hour.

[techblitz]

im a fan of leaving the p88 and 66 alone and modifying the 111,so for now i will +1 your suggestion and see what others have to say

But as per the 66 & 88 what are the patronage figures for the 111? Ive seen my share of almost empty 111`s plus the odd full bus on occasion.The 66 & 88 will not be reworked  due to increasing popularity of the 88 and the 66 already in the top 5 busiest( i think translink would share that view)

However the 111 is an interesting one that duplicates a lot of routes in between roma st & eight mile plains.So taking in the new busway and latest changes..... the question is what can be done with it?Maybe translink will just leave it?I hope not!

[techblitz]

Make it a pre paid route for starters, advertise and promote the hell out of it like CityGlider and bus lanes during peak hour.

About the only thinng translink seem to be promoting to an effective level at the moment is the 9 trip journey cap.They are absolutely hopeless at advertising new or very handy bus routes eg:77.... and actually keeping the routes advertised at stations to inform new passengers in the future.There are plenty of timesaving routes which are simply not advertised to thier full potential.it seems the private advertisers get preference over bus route advertising.

[#Metro]

I've bitched about this for ages with a host of different ways like 111 extension to Aspley int, 111+333 merge, 111+333 merge to aspley int prepaid with a 330/340 termination at Chermside with a new route Chermside-Aspley via geebung and so on and so on but most people say its too long or it won't be reliable. Make it a pre paid route for starters, advertise and promote the hell out of it like CityGlider, cut routes at interchanges/bus stations and bus lanes during peak hour.

Well the purpose of me mentioning the P88 was to demonstrate that reliability is not a reason against this proposal. Coronation drive is easily the worst road in Brisbane, and yet here you have a service that runs half on road, and half on busway. So the precedent has been set. At least with the 333 and 111 merger proposal, most of the service will be on a busway and if just one of the lanes of the three general traffic lanes on Gympie Road could be converted into a transit lane (even during peak hour) then it would work.

It could also be all door boarding and pre-paid, but these are 'extras' that can happen that aren't linked to the merger proposal.

[somebody]

Lutwyche Rd & KSD give Coro a run for its money.

[Jonno]

Link them together and call it the Chermside/Aspley- 8 Mile Plains/Springwood Line.  It is time to create trunk routes on all our major roads!!  (aka link the Buz's) into cross city lines. 

[achiruel]

Why don't we just have the 666 from Beenleigh to Redcliffe via M1 to Hyperdome, Springwood, SEB, INB, NB, Chermside, then via 680 route to Redcliffe?

[techblitz]

Why don't we just have the 666 from Beenleigh to Redcliffe via M1 to Hyperdome, Springwood, SEB, INB, NB, Chermside, then via 680 route to Redcliffe?

lol now that would definitely give the great circle a run for its money

[Gazza]

Why don't we just have the 666 from Beenleigh to Redcliffe via M1 to Hyperdome, Springwood, SEB, INB, NB, Chermside, then via 680 route to Redcliffe?

What a fitting route number for a route like that.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Saw the 680 on my way through Carseldine today. Has filled to the brim. Had to have been about 2 people onboard at the back so bring it on! 

[Mr X]

Why don't we just have the 666 from Beenleigh to Redcliffe via M1 to Hyperdome, Springwood, SEB, INB, NB, Chermside, then via 680 route to Redcliffe?

Extend it to Caboolture via Dayboro and Mt Mee and we are in for a winner!

[#Metro]

Okay, cut the joking and get back on track. This thread has majorly derailed!

[Mr X]

I think it's a bad idea.

The 333 is significantly less reliable than the 111 (due to the shocking planning used for this "northern busway" for one...  ) so southbound 111s will often be late.

I can't see any advantages to having a same seat journey from 8PM -> Chermside. People on this forum pan the 77 and 88, so this will be another disaster in the works 

[HappyTrainGuy]

I like the 77

[somebody]

And there already is a 123 

And it is a bad idea.

[#Metro]

I think it's a bad idea.

The 333 is significantly less reliable than the 111 (due to the shocking planning used for this "northern busway" for one...  ) so southbound 111s will often be late.

I can't see any advantages to having a same seat journey from 8PM -> Chermside. People on this forum pan the 77 and 88, so this will be another disaster in the works

Reliability is fair to raise, but the argument is premised on something that is changeable. If bus lanes were placed in there (and this route could be part of that push to make such changes), then the reliability argument would go out the window. Also, because the frequency is so high anyway, even if every single bus were delayed by an entire hour (going to extremes to demonstrate my point) the frequency would still be every 10-15 minutes - so passengers would have no idea that their bus isn't on time - they would just see buses every 10 or 15 minutes. There are also heaps of other buses on the corridor as well.

The reason why I think this idea should get consideration is
a) it simplifies the network
b) it frees up 4 slots at CC in the off peak and 6 in peak hour
c) it has balanced loadings - shopping centres at either end and CBD in the middle - perfection
d) cuts out an interchange in the CBD
e) actually cheaper to operate because the overlap/duplication between CC - Roma Street layover is eliminated

[achiruel]

I'm guessing the fault for the derailment is probably mine, however I was trying to point out (rather sarcastically) that in general long bus routes are a bad idea.

Heck the 199 has trouble staying on time and it's about 10km end to end.

[#Metro]

Suppose you went out to catch a bus that's supposed to come every 10 minutes, but every bus on the line was exactly 10 minutes late.  By any lateness standard, that would count as total failure.  But by any appropriate standard, it would be perfection.  You wouldn't know anything was wrong, and in a well-managed system, nothing would be wrong. 

So at high frequencies, "on time" shouldn't be about the time the bus arrives, but the actual frequency, i.e. the elapsed time between consecutive buses.  A standard might say that 90% of the time, the next bus will come in no more than 150% of the published headway -- i.e. 90% of the time you won't wait more than 15 minutes if the published frequency is 10 minutes.

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/06/mundane-things-that-really-matter-defining-on-time.html

I'm guessing the fault for the derailment is probably mine, however I was trying to point out (rather sarcastically) that in general long bus routes are a bad idea.

For something lower frequency running through suburban streets (i.e. the GCL) I would agree, but specifically, a) this is a high frequency service and b) most of it is on busway separated from traffic and c) put in a bus lane and problem solved!

[HappyTrainGuy]

But its travelling along a majority of a busway. Bring in a Aspley-8MP service. Ramp up a frequency better than buz ie every 10 minutes ala cityglider. Start cutting routes at interchanges and busway stations along its route. No need for timetables. Bring in buslanes. Start cutting city routes. Make feeder buses fan out ie left to right connecting between the busway and railway lines.

[#Metro]

But its travelling along a majority of a busway. Bring in a Aspley-8MP service. Ramp up a frequency better than buz ie every 10 minutes ala cityglider. Start cutting routes at interchanges and busway stations along its route. No need for timetables. Bring in buslanes.

Run it like a train. All the other train lines cross the city, why not bus services too? Heck, the bus travels just as fast or even faster than the train anyway!

[HappyTrainGuy]

Some routes you can run like a train ie the principals for high frequency core routes where there are no rail lines. Problems arise when the run a bus like a train is applied to every god damn route in town that must go to the city 

[Mr X]

Some fair points you raise there, TT.

Reliability is fair to raise, but the argument is premised on something that is changeable. If bus lanes were placed in there (and this route could be part of that push to make such changes), then the reliability argument would go out the window. Also, because the frequency is so high anyway, even if every single bus were delayed by an entire hour (going to extremes to demonstrate my point) the frequency would still be every 10-15 minutes - so passengers would have no idea that their bus isn't on time - they would just see buses every 10 or 15 minutes. There are also heaps of other buses on the corridor as well.

Well it isn't going to be delayed by an hour so that point is moot. You're accepting delays will happen but then trying to rationalise it by claiming that it's all well and good if the bus is so late it arrives when the next one is scheduled- yippee!
No, we'll end up with a route as unreliable as say the 150 or the GCL already are with little benefit.

The reason why I think this idea should get consideration is
a) it simplifies the network

Streamlining the excessive number of peak hour routes to places like Carindale would do more to simplify the network then.

b) it frees up 4 slots at CC in the off peak and 6 in peak hour

While that is a benefit, this middle stretch will be under double the amount of pressure as it was before. People who usually take the 111 from Roma Street outbound will find themselves competing for the same bus space as people going from QUT KG to Cultural Centre (for example).

c) it has balanced loadings - shopping centres at either end and CBD in the middle - perfection

Changing buses is hard, how? Are there people who go from Chermside to Garden City which justifies a merger? What's wrong with swapping buses at the cultural centre, roma street, or KGSBS?

d) cuts out an interchange in the CBD

Are you seriously advocating same seat journeys all over Brisbane? 
Using your logic, we should merge the 222 and the 444, or the 130 with the 330, or the 412 with the 150.

This is exactly the same mindset which you repeatedly attack Translink for having yet here you are, advocating it when it isn't required!!

e) actually cheaper to operate because the overlap/duplication between CC - Roma Street layover is eliminated

See my answer to the above.

Run it like a train. All the other train lines cross the city, why not bus services too? Heck, the bus travels just as fast or even faster than the train anyway!

But it's a bus. It's not a train.

[somebody]

Plenty of much lower fruit to reduce congestion through the city.

[#Metro]

Well it isn't going to be delayed by an hour so that point is moot. You're accepting delays will happen but then trying to rationalise it by claiming that it's all well and good if the bus is so late it arrives when the next one is scheduled- yippee!

Yes, but you've deliberately avoided the fact that people care about the interval and frequency when it comes to high frequency services, which is what we are talking about. I once had a 111 (?) turn up and the driver was apologizing profusely because the bus was an HOUR late. I actually had no idea it was late - it turned up 15 minutes after the last one and I had no delay at all. Did you read the excerpt I posted from the human transit blog?

No, we'll end up with a route as unreliable as say the 150 or the GCL already are with little benefit.

I actually use the 150 daily and I have never had a problem with it.

Streamlining the excessive number of peak hour routes to places like Carindale would do more to simplify the network then.

This may well be true, but again, it doesn't cancel out the fact that this would also be consistent with the principle of streamlining. The fact that
there are some routes around Carindale that could do with some streamlining actually isn't an argument against streamlining this particular route.

While that is a benefit, this middle stretch will be under double the amount of pressure as it was before. People who usually take the 111 from Roma Street outbound will find themselves competing for the same bus space as people going from QUT KG to Cultural Centre (for example).

I haven't seen this happen with the P88, which performs a similar function or the 199 or 196 which are through-routing. Through routing actually balances loads and has many benefits ---> http://www.humantransit.org/2009/08/why-isnt-throughrouting-more-common.html

Changing buses is hard, how? Are there people who go from Chermside to Garden City which justifies a merger? What's wrong with swapping buses at the cultural centre, roma street, or KGSBS?

See --->  http://www.humantransit.org/2009/08/why-isnt-throughrouting-more-common.html

It is also much harder to change at CC, particularly in peak hour when the platform is absolutely bursting at the seams with people!

This is exactly the same mindset which you repeatedly attack Translink for having yet here you are, advocating it when it isn't required!!

Transfers are necessary, but if you can cut one out, why not? You tell me what the benefit it of having two buses terminate in the CBD. Are you advocating to saw the 199 and 196 in half also?

But it's a bus. It's not a train.

Please explain how the bus having rubber tyres and the train having steel wheels prevents through routing being employed.

[#Metro]

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/08/why-isnt-throughrouting-more-common.html

Through-routing has these colossal advantages:

Fewer "transfers." Some people are actually going from Connecticut to New Jersey, for example, and through-routing lets them make this trip without changing trains.  More commonly, a lot of people from the north (i.e. Connecticut) are going to southern parts of New York City, while a lot of other people from New Jersey are going to northern parts of the city, and a through-routed system serves both groups, which are briefly on the train at the same time in the city.   Because of the decentralised structure of Paris, lots of Parisians are riding across the city to the far side, in both directions, so the RER's through-routed structure is absolutely essential to avoid forcing huge masses of people to change trains.

Reduced need for terminus facilities on expensive downtown real estate, and thus potential for higher frequency.  Ending a line downtown means having facilities to store a bus or train for at least a few minutes, consuming expensive space.  Trains typically reverse direction at an end-of-line station, so the driver needs to close her cab, walk the length of the train, and get herself set up on the other cab; she may also be entitled to some break time.  A train occupies one of a limited number of tail tracks while this is happening, so this function becomes THE limiting factor on the frequency of the whole line.  Downtown, there are lots of physical and cost constraints on station design, so you almost never have as many tail tracks as you'd like.  Buses need space to turn around and their drivers, too, are entitled to some break time at the end of a trip, so end-of-line stations on frequent services need space for a number of buses to pile up in a first-in-first-out queueing arrangement.  All this takes a lot of space, and this space is a lot cheaper at the end of a suburban line than it is in the middle of downtown.

Fewer line ends, for reduced operating and capital cost.  The time it takes to turn around a bus or train around, and provide the driver break, is usually not related to the length of the line.  Through-routing two routes eliminates two ends-of-lines, which reduces the cost, both operating and capital, of those inefficient turnaround movements.  Often, through-routing two lines actually reduces, by one or two, the number of buses or trainsets required.         


Fewer vehicles downtown providing the same service.  Sometimes, too, the pre-through-routed lines overlap in downtown, so the through-routing eliminates that overlap.  Instead of having a bus dropping off passengers interacting with another bus picking passengers up, you have one bus dropping off passengers and picking them up at the same time.  For buses especially, downtown street capacity is a very limited resource in big cities, and through-routing helps economise on it. 



So why isn't there more of through-routing?


Excessive line length.  The probability that your train or bus is delayed is directly related to how long it's been running since it last had an end-of-line break.  (When a vehicle arrives late at the end-of-line, its break time is reduced, so that it can leave on time or at least not as late.)  Through-routing makes lines longer, so it can compound this problem.  This is obviously more of an issue in services that are exposed to more causes of delay, such as services in mixed-traffic and services with driver-administered fare collection.

Most of it is on a busway - and if a bus lane were put in, this reason would NOT apply.

[Gazza]

Mr X....

If you can put two routes together as a logical pair, do it. That costs $0.

But at the same time, don't make new routes on top of well served coridoors/coridoors that can be better organized (Eg P88) That costs $$$$

See the difference?

[techblitz]

But at the same time, don't make new routes on top of well served coridoors/coridoors that can be better organized (Eg P88) That costs $$$$

Agreed.Translink love making new routes but only changing the odd route here and there.

ps: p88 o/b full bus at buranda with some standing pax @ 7.10ish this evening

[O_128]

111+333 definently need to be merged, abolish the useless 160 while your at it. this is the same scenario as the ipswich line and caboolture lines terminating at roma street with a forced transfer.

Will also reduced congestion as many 111 people who are going to QUT won't need to change.

[somebody]

Will also reduced congestion as many 111 people who are going to QUT won't need to change.

So just extend a route to QUT KG in daytimes.  Perhaps there might be a route which is suitable...

[beauyboy]

It is a big fat no from me. If people need that connection use the 77.
without making a big fat paragraph I am just going to say NO there is the 77 for that use it is an excellent route for that use.
Fixing up routes is one thing but long cross city, cross CBD routes have big issues.

Donald

[#Metro]

I was standing at Buranda on a Saturday. A lady from outside of Brisbane came up to me and asked if the platform I was on was the right one for the 77.

I told her that it was, but she could just catch the next city bus and change in the CBD. She said "oh, no, I just want one bus" and she waited. (I actually think the complexity of the network, lack of a unified-mode CFN map and decent wayfinding along with waiting times are the main detterents to interchange rather than the act of interchange itself).

I then realised that it was a Saturday. I went back up to her and told her that I wasn't sure the 77 was running and to ring TransLink (which she did).

The person at TransLink rattled off a list of a bazillion options to PCH at Chermside (typical journey planner nonsense - a CFN map would have done and dusted that off in minutes and been all day reliable).

I think 77 isn't so great - it has limited options because it has a limited market. A 333 or 111 or '123' is more versatile and all-purpose - you get pax going from everywhere to everywhere. On 77 - you can't pool passengers as there are no destinations you can change to (other than UQ Perhaps).

And as I keep saying - with a bus lane and high frequency there is no issue.

[beauyboy]

Part time Bus routes are another thing all together. If there is one thing i can't stand it is part time bus routes.

Donald

[HappyTrainGuy]

You don't want to venture onto the northside then mate haha.