• Welcome to RAIL - Back On Track Forum.
 

Ministerial Statement: Newman Government to improve bus networks

Started by ozbob, July 24, 2012, 05:23:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

nathandavid88

Quote from: tramtrain on July 25, 2012, 12:45:57 PM
Quote
"We welcome the suggestion of bringing logic to the city stop locations.  This has always been sadly lacking.  Ideally this should remove the break up of routes along operator lines which currently applies.  They are all TransLink services."

I agree. Stupid how 555 stops outside the Myer Centre, 160 stops underneath it (hur hur!!) and 111 stops in KGS and P88 stops in KGS 50 meters from the 111 stop!

USELESS!! :prI often find myself thinking "Well, I wonder where the bus will come to first- KGS? QSBS?
I often give up and just get a 199/CityGlider/196/anything to Cultural Centre and then change again there.

As a person who uses the 555 regularly, I don't think it should really be grouped with the 111, P88 and 160 (is there even a reason for the 160 to exist as a separate route other that to provide extra capacity?). Personally, I see it as being more akin to, and should be grouped with, the 130, 140 and 150 routes in that it's a service that goes to a destination via the busway, rather than being a dedicated Busway service like the 111, 160 and P88. People who are travelling from the CBD specifically to a busway location should be encouraged to use the dedicated Busway services like the 111, which should be grouped together in one location (KGSB), while the people going further out should be the main people taking the 555 (or the 130, 140, 150, etc), which could be grouped together in a separate location (QSBS). The 555 could even be adjusted to run express between Griffith and Buranda really – they rarely stop there anyway and it would speed it up a little bit too.

Well, that's my 2¢ anyway. As for the QSBS only being used by BT services, isn't that due to the fact that it's BCC-owned? I recall reading that Translink wanted to take control of it from council, but there was squabbling over how should foot the bill for its greatly needed refurb!

SurfRail

^ TransLink is now responsible for managing and cleaning the QSBS.  (BT still have their "bus control" in the middle.)

Your reasoning on the 555 makes perfect sense, but only if it actually matches the service pattern of the 130 etc.  Given the number of other services operating on the busway I suspect that makes sense.  Even if services were consolidated into a single route to do the all-stations job, the frequency would still likely need to be 8-12 buses an hour minimum, which broadly matches the 88/111/160 - the lack of the 555 should not make much difference and will let the air be squeezed out.
Ride the G:

david

Quote from: STB on July 25, 2012, 14:17:02 PM
Quote from: tramtrain on July 25, 2012, 13:49:03 PM
134 Griffith Uni Rocket should also be cut into a high frequency shuttle service. This bus leaves the CBD and goes ALL the way to Griffith Uni Busway station - why put this service on when you can catch ANY bus to Griffith Uni busway station and then interchange? It is actually faster because there are buses every 2-5 minutes all day on the busway.

Er, have you seen the loads on the 134?  In 2010 when I was going to Griffith Nathan nearly everyday, every service coming from and heading out of Griffith Uni was packed, not just the 134 but also the 135, 155, 260 and 262.  I used to catch the 260 when I was heading down there (except at night), and it would be packed with standees out of Griffth University busway station after a half empty bus filled with students heading to the university.   The platform reminds me a bit of Cultural Centre where there is near constant use of it with large numbers of students and staff trying to get between the two campuses and to/from the Nathan campus itself (the largest campus by student numbers, other than the Gold Coast campus). I wouldn't be surprised if that is still the case.

If the loads are really what you say they are, then I'd say leave it. But seriously, can't they just catch one of the half-empty P88/160 services that often fly through Griffith University station? It would be more cost-effective to have it as a shuttle IMO.

david

Quote from: Simon on July 25, 2012, 09:07:37 AM
Quote from: david on July 24, 2012, 20:55:17 PM
For the Centenary Suburbs in particular, get rid of P455, P456, P458 and P459 - if people want a "faster" trip into the City, they should be prepared to catch the 452 and transfer to the express trains at Darra. If they want the one-seat journey, they should be willing to put up with the longer 453/454/457 service.
Not 457?  >:D

I wouldn't go that far, but fold the 455-459 into two routes, which can easily be done in the AM just by tagging the city precincts service onto the end of the 455/456.

I wouldn't get rid of P457 mainly because most of the City Precincts services are 457s during the peak periods anyway (as opposed to 458/459s, which only do a couple of trips here and there), so most people would be accustomed to the longer route it takes, if they prefer to catch it.

And while I'm in the mood, I think the Chapel Hill leg of the 427 should be abolished, and the 427 made into the Indooroopilly to UQ non-stop service. Either that, or make the 402 non-stop between Toowong and UQ. Feeders are the key, and making them fast and frequent will make them more attractive. Might even save a few buses here and there by making them quicker.

Also, I think the 108 is worthy of abolishing. I can't see why it's required. Not sure about loads, but I'd expect that they're light.

ozbob

Sent to all outlets:

26th July 2012

BCC is a major problem for public transport improvement

Greetings,

One of the false premises that pervades Brisbane City Council (BCC) and Brisbane Transport (BT) is the misconception that everyone deserves a single seat journey.  This flawed premise is the fundamental reason why the bus network has broken down.  They are also see public transport as a political/competitive opportunity in my opinion, rather than working for a proper integrated network.

Planning for public transport needs to be removed completely from BCC.  TransLink is the authority.  BT is an operator. 

Have a read of ' "transferring" can be good for you, and good for your city '  http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

The bus network needs a radical redesign as does the entire network.  Core frequent services on busways and major arterial roads and frequent rail services, with frequent supporting feeder services with a wide span of hours.   BCC are locked in yesterdays paradigm.

Rather than competing with rail, time we used our rail network properly.

An integrated properly structured public transport network is functional, frequent, efficient, high capacity, reliable and cost effective.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

Quote from: ozbob on July 25, 2012, 02:42:02 AM


Media release 25th July 2012

SEQ: Bus review - the one we have been waiting for ...

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers supports the recent announcement by the Government that bus routes will be reviewed (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"In any public transport system the city it serves changes over time. Some routes become needed, but at the same time some become irrelevant. What might have been a logical route design 10-20 years ago might not recognise current travel patterns. New routes that are progressively added over time eventually become a jumble, and a full review becomes the only way to clean things up and provide a proper network."

"In Brisbane there are many cases where there are several variations on a particular bus route which are only a little bit different to each other.

"Trying to cater to every possible niche makes the network more confusing - with bundles of routes, and means very few of the routes get enough resources to make them frequent enough to be useful."

RAIL Back On Track supports a shift to a Core Frequent Network model, a simpler network of fast, frequent, direct routes down main roads, supported by short run local routes that feed into core routes at interchanges. This operates in conjunction with the rail network (2).

"There is much scope to find efficiency through a smarter overall network design."

"We welcome the suggestion of bringing logic to the city stop locations.  This has always been sadly lacking.  Ideally this should remove the break up of routes along operator lines which currently applies.  They are all TransLink services."

However, RAIL Back On Track would like details on the following significant potential issues:

- Assurances that late night buses of routes will be retained, even if the last few runs of the day are nearly empty. Whilst it may sound counter intuitive at first, the presence of late night services improves patronage overall, and allows people to avoid buying extra cars. The peace of mind knowing you won't be stranded late at night if you are stuck late at work, or the unplanned happens gives people the confidence to rely on the service in the first place, and incorporate it into their day to day life.

- Assurances that routes that provide primarily a social service (such as the elderly or the mobility impaired) will exist in some form, for example as Paratransit (3).

"Community consultation needs to be a cornerstone of this review."

"A number of bus routes presently operate in direct competition with rail and this is inefficient.  More frequent feeder bus services into core frequent services, bus and rail with a wider span of hours is needed, this also helps with parking issues."

"Redeployment does not mean cutbacks, it means providing more opportunities for frequent, efficient, direct services."

References:

1. http://www.scottemerson.com.au/media-releases/newman-government-to-improve-bus-networks.html

2. Building a Core Frequent Network http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5173.0

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratransit

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

ozbob

From the Queensland Times 26th July 2012 page 13

Fight for buses, travelllers (sic) told



Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

#Metro

Quote
And while I'm in the mood, I think the Chapel Hill leg of the 427 should be abolished, and the 427 made into the Indooroopilly to UQ non-stop service. Either that, or make the 402 non-stop between Toowong and UQ. Feeders are the key, and making them fast and frequent will make them more attractive. Might even save a few buses here and there by making them quicker.

+1

I caught the 412 late last night from St. Lucia. Get this, a 402 pulled up 5 minutes before, only 1 or 2 people got on it, everyone else waited for the 412, the 412 came in, everyone else got on it, it went to Toowong and then 80% of the bus got off.

So the question in my mind is - WHY? Why don't people catch the 402 when it was there first.
I suspect that many people don't want to catch the 402 because it can be slower.

I think the 402 should stop everywhere the 412 stops and the rest of the stops should be removed. The stop on Coldrige street (there are two) near the oval and Schonell Drive should become a 412 stop to cover that area.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

SurfRail

Why not just have the City to UQ route as the only service along there running more frequently?  (Savings to be drawn from terminating the all stopping routes like the 417 etc at Toowong.) 

KISS principle, which is nowhere to be found in the BCC network.
Ride the G:

somebody

Quote from: david on July 25, 2012, 22:58:16 PM
I wouldn't get rid of P457 mainly because most of the City Precincts services are 457s during the peak periods anyway (as opposed to 458/459s, which only do a couple of trips here and there), so most people would be accustomed to the longer route it takes, if they prefer to catch it.
What?  457 is the first route which should go.  It's just an awful legacy route.

Quote from: david on July 25, 2012, 22:58:16 PM
And while I'm in the mood, I think the Chapel Hill leg of the 427 should be abolished, and the 427 made into the Indooroopilly to UQ non-stop service. Either that, or make the 402 non-stop between Toowong and UQ. Feeders are the key, and making them fast and frequent will make them more attractive. Might even save a few buses here and there by making them quicker.
Remove the 427 all together.  Increase 432.  Main limitation might be removing service from Chapel Hill Rd.

Quote from: david on July 25, 2012, 22:58:16 PM
Also, I think the 108 is worthy of abolishing. I can't see why it's required. Not sure about loads, but I'd expect that they're light.
Having used this particular route a number of times, I wouldn't be inclined to remove it.  It's the only service along Park Rd from the CBD - perhaps you could argue that you can interchange onto a 104 or walk from the train.  It's also the only reasonably direct service to Tennyson.  It doesn't get standees, but it does get a decent seated load.  Sure there are busier routes, but by that line of logic the 104 should be truncated at Yeerongpilly.

ozbob

Sent to all outlets:

27th July 2012

Re: BCC is a major problem for public transport improvement

Greetings,

As a ratepayer of Brisbane, personally I am disgusted the way BCC uses public transport for their own political ends, rather than being a team player in an integrated public transport network.

For example BCC bucks at letting other bus operators use bus facilities in the CBD.  This is because of some notion that their (Brisbane Transport) route kilometres might be impacted.  Far from truth, as if the network is operating efficiently everyone wins.

The bewildering position with the Green Bridge -Eleanor Schonell Bridge, they won't allow private bus operators to use it.  LOL, what a mob of petty fools.

Clearly to move ahead with a proper efficient functioning network, planning control for the network needs to be removed from BCC.  They don't have the best interests on the community at heart as evidenced by their self serving anti-public transport behaviours on display for all.

It is time State Government had the courage to sort the festering mess, once and for all.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

Quote from: ozbob on July 26, 2012, 02:30:04 AM
Sent to all outlets:

26th July 2012

BCC is a major problem for public transport improvement

Greetings,

One of the false premises that pervades Brisbane City Council (BCC) and Brisbane Transport (BT) is the misconception that everyone deserves a single seat journey.  This flawed premise is the fundamental reason why the bus network has broken down.  They are also see public transport as a political/competitive opportunity in my opinion, rather than working for a proper integrated network.

Planning for public transport needs to be removed completely from BCC.  TransLink is the authority.  BT is an operator. 

Have a read of ' "transferring" can be good for you, and good for your city '  http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

The bus network needs a radical redesign as does the entire network.  Core frequent services on busways and major arterial roads and frequent rail services, with frequent supporting feeder services with a wide span of hours.   BCC are locked in yesterdays paradigm.

Rather than competing with rail, time we used our rail network properly.

An integrated properly structured public transport network is functional, frequent, efficient, high capacity, reliable and cost effective.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

Quote from: ozbob on July 25, 2012, 02:42:02 AM


Media release 25th July 2012

SEQ: Bus review - the one we have been waiting for ...

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers supports the recent announcement by the Government that bus routes will be reviewed (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"In any public transport system the city it serves changes over time. Some routes become needed, but at the same time some become irrelevant. What might have been a logical route design 10-20 years ago might not recognise current travel patterns. New routes that are progressively added over time eventually become a jumble, and a full review becomes the only way to clean things up and provide a proper network."

"In Brisbane there are many cases where there are several variations on a particular bus route which are only a little bit different to each other.

"Trying to cater to every possible niche makes the network more confusing - with bundles of routes, and means very few of the routes get enough resources to make them frequent enough to be useful."

RAIL Back On Track supports a shift to a Core Frequent Network model, a simpler network of fast, frequent, direct routes down main roads, supported by short run local routes that feed into core routes at interchanges. This operates in conjunction with the rail network (2).

"There is much scope to find efficiency through a smarter overall network design."

"We welcome the suggestion of bringing logic to the city stop locations.  This has always been sadly lacking.  Ideally this should remove the break up of routes along operator lines which currently applies.  They are all TransLink services."

However, RAIL Back On Track would like details on the following significant potential issues:

- Assurances that late night buses of routes will be retained, even if the last few runs of the day are nearly empty. Whilst it may sound counter intuitive at first, the presence of late night services improves patronage overall, and allows people to avoid buying extra cars. The peace of mind knowing you won't be stranded late at night if you are stuck late at work, or the unplanned happens gives people the confidence to rely on the service in the first place, and incorporate it into their day to day life.

- Assurances that routes that provide primarily a social service (such as the elderly or the mobility impaired) will exist in some form, for example as Paratransit (3).

"Community consultation needs to be a cornerstone of this review."

"A number of bus routes presently operate in direct competition with rail and this is inefficient.  More frequent feeder bus services into core frequent services, bus and rail with a wider span of hours is needed, this also helps with parking issues."

"Redeployment does not mean cutbacks, it means providing more opportunities for frequent, efficient, direct services."

References:

1. http://www.scottemerson.com.au/media-releases/newman-government-to-improve-bus-networks.html

2. Building a Core Frequent Network http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5173.0

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratransit

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

achiruel

Quote from: nathandavid88 on July 25, 2012, 16:10:25 PMAs a person who uses the 555 regularly, I don't think it should really be grouped with the 111, P88 and 160.

Agreed.  555 has enough capacity issues taking people to Springwood/Hyperdome.  It is often difficult to get on a 555 even during off-peak anywhere beyond CC.  It really doesn't need more passengers that are going to get off at intermediate stations, the 111/160/P88 can serve those areas, and should be grouped together.  Leave 555 for people who really need it!

#Metro

Quote
Why not just have the City to UQ route as the only service along there running more frequently?  (Savings to be drawn from terminating the all stopping routes like the 417 etc at Toowong.)

KISS principle, which is nowhere to be found in the BCC network.

Because there is high load between Toowong and UQ. Converting all 402 to 412 will cost a lot more money (now has to run ALL the way to the CBD) and will just add more air to the 412 because Coronation Drive is already well served. Cut stops from 402 I reckon.

Quote
Agreed.  555 has enough capacity issues taking people to Springwood/Hyperdome.  It is often difficult to get on a 555 even during off-peak anywhere beyond CC.  It really doesn't need more passengers that are going to get off at intermediate stations, the 111/160/P88 can serve those areas, and should be grouped together.  Leave 555 for people who really need it!

Disagree. I also use 555 and I don't think it is anywhere near carrying as much pax as 111 in non-peak hours. In peak hour, perhaps a different story, but then most other buses are also full too, so being full during peak hour really isn't a reason. It is very very irritating to have all these split stops everywhere. I always have to do extra interchange in the CBD to a 199/196/CityGlider and then catch services from there because I can't be bothered working out which location the bus going to my stop is going to go from first.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

achiruel

The 111 may well carry more pax in non-peak than the 555 but I'd wager the P88 and especially the 160 are carrying far less.  I've been on 160s leaving Myer Centre at 5pm that are only half full!

Depends what you call peak hour too I guess.  I've had full 555s pass by Mater Hill at 3pm.

Also: how about having P88 (southern section at least) on the 111/160 timetable?

SurfRail

Quote from: tramtrain on July 27, 2012, 07:47:04 AMBecause there is high load between Toowong and UQ. Converting all 402 to 412 will cost a lot more money (now has to run ALL the way to the CBD) and will just add more air to the 412 because Coronation Drive is already well served. Cut stops from 402 I reckon.

So why not just run only the 412 via Coro Drive and another BUZ route via Milton Road?  If we absolutely have to run a separate express and all stations pattern on this route (which is an utter waste and overconcentrates frequency only at some stops), just keep the 411 running to town.

Train carries lots of air too in the off-peak.  Just empty people off all buses at Indooroopilly or Toowong.
Ride the G:

somebody

Quote from: SurfRail on July 27, 2012, 08:39:24 AM
Quote from: tramtrain on July 27, 2012, 07:47:04 AMBecause there is high load between Toowong and UQ. Converting all 402 to 412 will cost a lot more money (now has to run ALL the way to the CBD) and will just add more air to the 412 because Coronation Drive is already well served. Cut stops from 402 I reckon.

So why not just run only the 412 via Coro Drive and another BUZ route via Milton Road?  If we absolutely have to run a separate express and all stations pattern on this route (which is an utter waste and overconcentrates frequency only at some stops), just keep the 411 running to town.

Train carries lots of air too in the off-peak.  Just empty people off all buses at Indooroopilly or Toowong.
Did I miss something?  Where's Milton Rd come into it?

As for the 402, what makes sense in the area is a route which runs non-stop between Toowong rail and UQ-Chancellors Place.  I'm inclined to agree that Sir Fred Schonnell Drive doesn't justify blue and white stops.

Quote from: achiruel on July 27, 2012, 07:10:37 AM
Quote from: nathandavid88 on July 25, 2012, 16:10:25 PMAs a person who uses the 555 regularly, I don't think it should really be grouped with the 111, P88 and 160.

Agreed.  555 has enough capacity issues taking people to Springwood/Hyperdome.  It is often difficult to get on a 555 even during off-peak anywhere beyond CC.  It really doesn't need more passengers that are going to get off at intermediate stations, the 111/160/P88 can serve those areas, and should be grouped together.  Leave 555 for people who really need it!
What about extending the 88 to Logan Hyp?  Wouldn't that resolve these issues?

Golliwog

I disagree about making the 402 express UQ-Toowong. While I'd expect some pax to now wait at Toowong for a 402 over a 412, given the traffic and the short distance, there's really not much of a time saving to be had. Hence, all the pax trying to board the already fairly full 412 buses between Toowong and UQ are now going to be worse off.

Granted, for most that are just heading to/from the uni, it's not a hard walk/cycle but I don't think that's a valid reason to give them a worse service. I would support paring the 402 back to only stop at the BUZ stops though.
There is no silver bullet... but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

somebody

Quote from: Golliwog on July 27, 2012, 10:23:52 AM
I disagree about making the 402 express UQ-Toowong. While I'd expect some pax to now wait at Toowong for a 402 over a 412, given the traffic and the short distance, there's really not much of a time saving to be had. Hence, all the pax trying to board the already fairly full 412 buses between Toowong and UQ are now going to be worse off.
Soo, "keep it the way it is"?  That's how we got a lot of the mediocrity we now have.

#Metro

QuoteThe 111 may well carry more pax in non-peak than the 555 but I'd wager the P88 and especially the 160 are carrying far less.  I've been on 160s leaving Myer Centre at 5pm that are only half full!

Depends what you call peak hour too I guess.  I've had full 555s pass by Mater Hill at 3pm.

Also: how about having P88 (southern section at least) on the 111/160 timetable?

I don't care how it happens or what the details are, where possible, buses that go to the same place should leave from the same stop. Patronage isn't that relevant to this purpose. Either they all go from QSBS or they go from KGS not both.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

#Metro

QuoteI disagree about making the 402 express UQ-Toowong. While I'd expect some pax to now wait at Toowong for a 402 over a 412, given the traffic and the short distance, there's really not much of a time saving to be had. Hence, all the pax trying to board the already fairly full 412 buses between Toowong and UQ are now going to be worse off.

Granted, for most that are just heading to/from the uni, it's not a hard walk/cycle but I don't think that's a valid reason to give them a worse service. I would support paring the 402 back to only stop at the BUZ stops though.

402 should only stop at the stops that the 412 stops at currently. All the other stops should be removed with the exception of the one near the UQ Oval on Coldrige street, which I think should be made into a 412 stop also. Would the 412 users be worse off? No not really - an extra stop might add 30 seconds to a journey (imperceptible) and the bus in peak hour is crawling along Schonell Drive anyway so I doubt anyone would notice. The 402 will also be sped up by the same amount plus there will be more room on the 412 as well as the 402 will be used more effectively.

As for extending route 402 down Milton Road - I think this is possible, but only if you cut out the 470 (we can cover James Street, New Farm, another way).
411 should also be a candidate for terminating at Toowong Station.

Whatever funds that are saved, should be re-invested. Re-organisation will not work if attendant frequency and span is not improved, funded by the savings made by these cuts, to make up for the creation of interchanges at these nodes.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

#Metro

Quote
Er, have you seen the loads on the 134?  In 2010 when I was going to Griffith Nathan nearly everyday, every service coming from and heading out of Griffith Uni was packed, not just the 134 but also the 135, 155, 260 and 262.  I used to catch the 260 when I was heading down there (except at night), and it would be packed with standees out of Griffth University busway station after a half empty bus filled with students heading to the university.

Yes, but this feeds into the notion that the only reason why a route can be cut is because it has low patronage. And this simply isn't true - there are many other reasons why routes can and should be cut and re-organised, low patronage is only one of them. A high patronage route might be cut if it is superceded by something better, for example. In the case of the 134, there are buses every 60-90 seconds at Griffith Uni Busway, catch one of those. They're actually more frequent! Previous 134 patrons will easily connect to these services instead. Plenty of room.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

SurfRail

There should be a moratorium on delivering any new bus route in SEQ unless they pay for 30 minute 6am to 9pm minimum with no shortworkings or variations or one-way loops (unless those are short deviations made necessary by terrain).  The only exceptions would be on the urban periphery where a lower service standard might actually be appropriate (eg hourly for semi-rural places).

Also a moratorium on new peak-hour only routes to the CBD. 

Consolidate all rockets/expresses/bullets etc so wherever you are in Brisbane, your service always goes to the same part of the city like the Logan and Redlands ones.  If you want buses to go to Riverside, they always go to Riverside.  None of this "city precincts" crap. 

The entire CBD is walkable, and they can bump up the free loop as a distributor using the now-available resources if they perceive a need for it.
Ride the G:

somebody

Quote from: tramtrain on July 27, 2012, 11:24:29 AM
Quote
Er, have you seen the loads on the 134?  In 2010 when I was going to Griffith Nathan nearly everyday, every service coming from and heading out of Griffith Uni was packed, not just the 134 but also the 135, 155, 260 and 262.  I used to catch the 260 when I was heading down there (except at night), and it would be packed with standees out of Griffth University busway station after a half empty bus filled with students heading to the university.

Yes, but this feeds into the notion that the only reason why a route can be cut is because it has low patronage. And this simply isn't true - there are many other reasons why routes can and should be cut and re-organised, low patronage is only one of them. A high patronage route might be cut if it is superceded by something better, for example. In the case of the 134, there are buses every 60-90 seconds at Griffith Uni Busway, catch one of those. They're actually more frequent! Previous 134 patrons will easily connect to these services instead. Plenty of room.
There are few other services between GU Busway and the Nathan campus.  Don't cut the 134.

Quote from: tramtrain on July 27, 2012, 11:21:35 AM
QuoteI disagree about making the 402 express UQ-Toowong. While I'd expect some pax to now wait at Toowong for a 402 over a 412, given the traffic and the short distance, there's really not much of a time saving to be had. Hence, all the pax trying to board the already fairly full 412 buses between Toowong and UQ are now going to be worse off.

Granted, for most that are just heading to/from the uni, it's not a hard walk/cycle but I don't think that's a valid reason to give them a worse service. I would support paring the 402 back to only stop at the BUZ stops though.

402 should only stop at the stops that the 412 stops at currently. All the other stops should be removed with the exception of the one near the UQ Oval on Coldrige street, which I think should be made into a 412 stop also. Would the 412 users be worse off? No not really - an extra stop might add 30 seconds to a journey (imperceptible) and the bus in peak hour is crawling along Schonell Drive anyway so I doubt anyone would notice. The 402 will also be sped up by the same amount plus there will be more room on the 412 as well as the 402 will be used more effectively.
If you are removing the non-412 stops from Sir Schonell Drive, why should the 402 serve those stops?  Better to just shuttle the high pax loads from UQ to Toowong.  Particularly for the semester only trips which would mean a different route number.  But I think just one level of stop along Sir Fred Schonell Drive.

Quote from: SurfRail on July 27, 2012, 11:29:56 AM
None of this "city precincts" cr%p. 
206 + PM 207 seem to perform reasonably well.

Golliwog

Quote from: Simon on July 27, 2012, 10:53:30 AM
Quote from: Golliwog on July 27, 2012, 10:23:52 AM
I disagree about making the 402 express UQ-Toowong. While I'd expect some pax to now wait at Toowong for a 402 over a 412, given the traffic and the short distance, there's really not much of a time saving to be had. Hence, all the pax trying to board the already fairly full 412 buses between Toowong and UQ are now going to be worse off.
Soo, "keep it the way it is"?  That's how we got a lot of the mediocrity we now have.
I'd argue that the only thing mediocre about the connection between UQ and Toowong is the lack of bus priority. The routes and frequency are great. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
There is no silver bullet... but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

SurfRail

Ride the G:

#Metro

QuoteThere are few other services between GU Busway and the Nathan campus.  Don't cut the 134.

My point is this: 134 or no 134, it does not need to go all the way into the CBD. Cut it into a feeder.

Quote
If you are removing the non-412 stops from Sir Schonell Drive, why should the 402 serve those stops?  Better to just shuttle the high pax loads from UQ to Toowong.  Particularly for the semester only trips which would mean a different route number.  But I think just one level of stop along Sir Fred Schonell Drive.

So that there is no misunderstanding, what I am saying is this - everywhere there is a 412 stop, the 402 should stop there. Remove all other 402-only bus stops, except the one near the oval, which should be upgraded to a 412 BUZ bus stop.

As for a 402 Rocket Service, that would decrease the frequency along Schonell Drive, but I am a bit agnostic on the proposal. Yes it would be super fast, but on the other hand, I doubt that it would get high load all day because it has such few stops, and frequency at intermediate stops between UQ and Toowong would see a major decrease in frequency.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

Gazza

Spot on TT about the 402 & 412. They should do exactly what you said.
The concept of having two tiiers of stops on a road like sir Fred schonell drive is completely brain damaged IMO.

somebody

Quote from: tramtrain on July 27, 2012, 12:01:17 PM
QuoteThere are few other services between GU Busway and the Nathan campus.  Don't cut the 134.

My point is this: 134 or no 134, it does not need to go all the way into the CBD. Cut it into a feeder.

Sigh.  As pointed out above, the 134 is really just counter peak anyway so positioning to GU Busway would be dead running anyway.

somebody

Quote from: SurfRail on July 27, 2012, 11:53:12 AM
Quote from: Simon on July 27, 2012, 11:32:40 AM
206 + PM 207 seem to perform reasonably well.

They would be few of many.
136 has an obvious reason why it would perform poorly.

Of the others, the only one which seems like it MIGHT be a well designed route is the 384.

#Metro

Quote
Spot on TT about the 402 & 412. They should do exactly what you said.
The concept of having two tiiers of stops on a road like sir Fred schonell drive is completely brain damaged IMO.

+1

When I look at the network, I just shake my head and think 'This is crazy!!'. In Canberra they are absolutely RUTHLESS with stop spacing - 500 - 800 meters, none of this two stop business, the bus reaches 80 km/hour / busway speeds in bus lanes and on main roads, the speed is so fast it leaves many Brisbane buses for dead. When I came back it really hit home - most of Brisbane buses are SLOW SLOW SLOW!! Give them priority and speed them up!

Oh and the buses reach 5-8 minute frequency on the main arterial as well. Just like a busway.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

somebody

^ No need to +1 someone who was already +1-ing you!

Why not increase the 412 if there is a need to increase frequency at the Sir Fred Schonell Drive stops?  Buses are already more frequent along that road than the trains they might be connecting to.

SurfRail

I would decommission the following BT route numbers in their current form altogether.  More useful things can be done with the resources on a full-time basis - either reinvesting elsewhere, cutting off extensions to the city, or in the case of peak-hour routes rerouting and upgrading the adjacent full-service routes.

29 (if demonstrably not pulling its weight after being assessed)
77 (Buranda to Eight Mile Plains, maybe retain but send to UQ)
88 (no need to replace)
105 (107 and 108 run full-time)
113 (run more/redesigned 112s)
114 (112)
115 (110, 135, 150)
118 (Richlands line, new cross-town services)
121 (merge with 116)
124 (merge with 125 to create a BUZ)
131 (run all 130s via CCB and up frequency)
132 (no need to replace)
136 (no need to replace)
138 (no need to replace)
141 (more 142s and run all 140s via CCB)
151 (no need to replace and run all 150s via CCB)
160 (more 111s)
161 (north of Garden City)
162 (no need to replace)
171 (run more 170s and run them all via CCB)
173 (no need to replace)
174 (run more 175s and create a BUZ)
176 (no need to replace)
178 (no need to replace)
179 (run more 180s and run them all via CCB)
181 (no need to replace)
183 (replace with 177s)
184 (run more 185s and create a BUZ)
189 (no need to replace)
193 (no need to replace)
195 (run more 196s and 199s)
198 (look at a new inner city BUZ if warranted)
200 (merge with 222)
202 (run a Chatsworth Road BUZ and send all via CCB)
203 (no need to replace)
204 (resequence stops on Old Cleveland Rd)
205 (as per 202)
206 (create a peak hour route from Carindale to City via Captain Cook Bridge)
207 (as per 206)
208 (as per 202)
211 (no need to replace, more frequency 210/212)
214 (run 215 this way full time and 220 via Wynnum Rd)
216 (run 215 via Story Bridge full time)
217 (as per 206)
221 (ditto with 220)
231 (ditto with 230)
232 (no need to replace)
236 (ditto with 235)
308 (no need to replace)
313 (no need to replace)
314 (no need to replace)
322 (more 320s)
331 (more 330s)
332 (more 333s)
341 (more 340s)
343 (more 345s)
344 (more 340s/345s)
346 (no need to replace – more frequent services whole way along on other routes)
351 (more 350s)
352 (more 350s)
356 (more 353s)
360 (substantial redesign, allocate new route no)
361 (as per 360, maybe involve in same route)
363 (360/361 replacement)
364 (360/361 replacement)
370 (resequence Gympie Rd stops, and ultimately just run 333 all stops on Northern Busway)
374 (more frequent 375s)
376 (more frequent 375s)
379 west of the city (380 BUZ)
381 (redesign 380 and 385 to create 2 BUZ routes)
382 (380 BUZ)
383 (380 BUZ)
384 (380 BUZ, more 350s)
402 (more 412s)
411 (from Toowong to City)
414 (no need to replace)
415 (redesign along with 414, issue new route no)
416 (no need to replace)
417 (from Indooroopilly to City)
425 (from Indooroopilly to City)
426 (no need to replace)
427 (no need to replace)
430 (from Indooroopilly to City)
431 (no need to replace)
433 (from Indooroopilly to City)
435 (from Indooroopilly to City)
436 (no need to replace)
443 (no need to replace)
444 (from Indooroopilly to City - replace Coro Dr with 412 and and Indooroopilly all stopper only)
445 (from Indooroopilly to City)
446 (I will be sad to see this go because of the amusement value in the name)
450 (Centenary restructure)
453 (Centenary restructure)
454 (Centenary restructure)
455 (more frequent full time routes)
456 (more frequent full time routes)
457 (more frequent full time routes)
458 (more frequent full time routes)
459 (more frequent full time routes)
460 (no need to replace except for tiny part after Mt Ommaney to be covered by something else)
461 (no need to replace)
462 (south of Richlands)
466 (no need to replace – extend 110 or some other route to Richlands)
468 (no need to replace)
476 (no need to replace)
598/599 (further breaking up)

This is around 100 bus routes which could be cut to reduce the complexity of the network without noticeably degrading frequency of service.
Ride the G:

somebody

I agree with much of that, but some is going too far.

Picking on one specific issue, removing 331, 332 AND 341 means that there is no connection between Parliament and RBH even in peak.  I'm not in favour of that.

I'd also challenge the capacity of KGSBS to support that level of increase to 330, 333, 340, 345 services.

Hmm, no buses along Moggill Rd between Indro and Toowong.

SurfRail

Quote from: Simon on July 27, 2012, 14:21:37 PM
I agree with much of that, but some is going too far.

Picking on one specific issue, removing 331, 332 AND 341 means that there is no connection between Parliament and RBH even in peak.  I'm not in favour of that.

I'd also challenge the capacity of KGSBS to support that level of increase to 330, 333, 340, 345 services.

Hmm, no buses along Moggill Rd between Indro and Toowong.

These wouldn't be the only changes.  Turfing so many of these routes creates opportunities to put buses back onto city streets and still take up less space than present.

No issue with there being better connections to Parliament.  I would in fact presume some other services would terminate at the Parliamentary precinct (perhaps the 325/335/350/357/359 to begin with).  Also, the 340 will be stopping there soon absent any of this.

KGS would no longer have to deal with the 88.  QSBS 'B' would be empty and available to take southside services (doing the current 4## loop-de-loop trick).  The C platform or the lower end of the A platform could be devoted to services coming from Roma Street which could then turn right to exit without needing to surface.

Indro to Toowong would be whatever replaces the Indro-City leg of the 444/88.  Or alternatively, just keep the 444 as is.  No strong preference - terminating the western end of the 444 at Indooroopilly is just a way of getting people onto the train, but there will already be plenty of that.
Ride the G:

HappyTrainGuy

No need to worry about KGSBS capacity if the northside network was properly designed between trains, buses and interchanges in the first place. One of the reasons why the 330 route needs so many buses are because its the only way to get to the city and to Strathpine/North via public transport (327 doesn't connect Bracken Ridge to Strathpine during peak hour). Many of the capacity issues resulting in the high frequency to the city could be fixed by extending Norris Road to Fitzgibbon, establishing feeder routes to Carseldine station, cutting the 330 and reducing its frequency at Chermside and merging the 111+333+Aspley Interchange extension to make use of the higher capacity buses available that none of the northside depots have. The longer buses shouldn't be too much of an issue as they made appearences when a certain type of bus was rulled out of action not for the first time.

#Metro

Quote
Why not increase the 412 if there is a need to increase frequency at the Sir Fred Schonell Drive stops?  Buses are already more frequent along that road than the trains they might be connecting to.

Because while you need frequency on the Schonell Drive bit, you don't need high frequency on the Coronation Drive bit as there is already heaps there and lots of capacity.
402 is already a feeder, just cut the extra stops and it will be fine.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

somebody

Quote from: tramtrain on July 27, 2012, 16:50:56 PM
Quote
Why not increase the 412 if there is a need to increase frequency at the Sir Fred Schonell Drive stops?  Buses are already more frequent along that road than the trains they might be connecting to.

Because while you need frequency on the Schonell Drive bit, you don't need high frequency on the Coronation Drive bit as there is already heaps there and lots of capacity.
402 is already a feeder, just cut the extra stops and it will be fine.
That frequency is not effective!  Inbound you are only picking up the 411+417 if you wait at the Benson St stop.  You can walk over to the High St stop but that idea can mean putting up with the turnaround into QSBS B.  I guess the 444+88 do provide some sort of service though.

#Metro

Quote
This is around 100 bus routes which could be cut to reduce the complexity of the network without noticeably degrading frequency of service.

You know BT only runs around 220 bus routes - you are asking half of the network to disappear!!

As for the 555 + 111, I think they should leave from the same stops. People don't care if "it is a busway service" or not. They care about where they can get on or off - these two buses between 8 Mile Plains and the CBD are identical in stopping pattern and therefore should be placed together at the same stops. The other thing is this - it is anti-competitive and against competitive neutrality principles for a government to use it's public ownership to give it an advantage over private operators / lock them out / make an environment where it is difficult for other operators to compete. This behavior by BCC, if true, reminds me a lot like Telstra Corporation and how they found all sorts of anti competitive rorts / things to make life difficult for other operators. It may well be true that BCC owns the Green Bridge or owns QSBS or whatever, but it also owns all of the local roads in the city- is it going to require non-BT operators to run on their own roads separate from the ones that BCC pays for. Ridiculous!



Quote
That frequency is not effective!  Inbound you are only picking up the 411+417 if you wait at the Benson St stop.  You can walk over to the High St stop but that idea can mean putting up with the turnaround into QSBS B.  I guess the 444+88 do provide some sort of service though.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

Gazza

402/412 is one I use daily.
There is a heap of demand purely on the Toowong-UQ stretch.
I'm entirley comfortable with short workings where demand warrants it. Boosting the 412 is a bit excessive.

All that really needs to be done is for the 402 and 412 to have the same stopping pattern....It's a 3km stretch, and the running times are highly variable anyway. so how anyone could justify two tiers of stop is beyond me.
"Express"....really?

And re passenger behavior. I'll take the first one that comes, rather than wait for a 412. If say a 402 is in the process of loading, and I'm not at the front of the line, and a 412 turns up, I'd say use the 412 in that circumstance.

#Metro

Quote
And re passenger behavior. I'll take the first one that comes, rather than wait for a 412. If say a 402 is in the process of loading, and I'm not at the front of the line, and a 412 turns up, I'd say use the 412 in that circumstance.

My observations lead me to believe that many people shun the 402 even if they want to go to Toowong, and I suspect it is because the 402 is slower.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

david

Quote from: SurfRail on July 27, 2012, 14:14:08 PM
This is around 100 bus routes which could be cut to reduce the complexity of the network without noticeably degrading frequency of service.

This list is very comprehensive, and I must agree with all of the suggestions that you have made for the Brisbane South and Brisbane West routes (my area of interest). It truly is amazing how much waste there is when you list it all out like that.

As for the 402/412 debate, making the 402 non-stop between UQ and Toowong would make it more popular, and hence, some of those "University Semesters Only" 412 services can be removed, saving quite a few buses. There is minimal time difference physically between the two services currently, but the whole notion of an "express" or "non-stop" service can make people think that it is faster and hence choose it. It's similar for the trains at Indooroopilly. Rarely do you get someone catching the all-stations service from Indooroopilly to the City, because they think the express is faster, when in fact, the time difference is a mere 3-4 minutes.

🡱 🡳